FROM  JEFFERSON 
TO  LINCOLN 


BY 


WILLIAM  MAcDONALD 

PROFESSOR  OF  AMERICAN  HISTORY  IN  BROWN  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 
HENRY   HOLT  AND   COMPANY 

LONDON 
WILLIAMS   AND   NORGATE 


fA& 


COPYRIGHT,  1913, 

BY 
HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 


THE  UNIVERSITY   PRESS,   CAMBRIDGE,    U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

To  tell  in  brief  compass,  but  with  accuracy  and 
clearness,  the  history  of  the  United  States  in  the 
eventful  period  from  1815  to  I860,  necessitates  the 
exclusion  of  nearly  everything  that  relates  mainly 
to  the  development  of  particular  States,  and  of  some 
topics  which  concern  the  growth  of  the  nation  as  a 
whole.  The  present  volume,  accordingly,  has  been 
restricted  chiefly  to  the  exposition  of  three  lines  of 
development,  namely,  constitutional  growth,  the  rise 
and  progress  of  political^jmrtieSj  and  slavejy.  Side 
by  side  with  these  dominating  interests  run  the  birth 
and  expansion  of  a  new  sense  of  democracy ;  and  of 
this,  too,  in  the  field  of  its  political  expression,  I  have 
sought  to  give  a  view. 

To  the  long  list  of  writers  who  have  traversed  this 
period,  in  whole  or  in  part,  every  succeeding  narrator 
is  deeply  beholden.  To  three  of  them,  however,  I 
gratefully  acknowledge  special  indebtedness  :  to  Mr. 
James  Ford  Rhodes,  whose  monumental  History 
must  long  remain  the  definitive  account  of  the  period 
subsequent  to  1850  ;  and  to  Professor  Theodore  Clark 
Smith  and  the  late  Professor  George  P.  Garrison, 
whose  volumes  in  the  American  Nation  series  are  works 
of  notable  insight. 

WILLIAM  MACDONALD. 

PROVIDENCE,  R.  I. 

March,  1913. 


267425 


CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I    THE  UNITED   STATES  IN  1815 7 

II    ECONOMIC  AND  POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT,  1815- 

1828 25 

III  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY,  1828-1837      ....  44 

IV  SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION,  1815-1840    ....  63 
V    TEXAS  AND  OREGON 82 

VI     THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO 103 

VII    THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850 124 

VIII    THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES     .  144 

IX    THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE      .  166 

X    THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS 187 

XI    THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM 208 

XII     UNION  OR  DISUNION 230 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 251 

INDEX                                                                       ,  253 


FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 
CHAPTER  I 

THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1815 

THE  War  of  1812  has  been  called,  for  the 
United  States,  a  "second  war  of  independ 
ence."  Although,  like  many  figures  of  speech, 
the  saying  is  neither  wholly  accurate  nor 
sufficiently  comprehensive,  it  nevertheless 
serves  to  call  attention  to  one  important 
outcome  of  the  war.  The  United  States 
had,  indeed,  been  a  free  and  independent 
nation  since  the  treaty  of  Paris,  in  1783, 
yet  it  had  not  been  able  at  all  times  to  assert 
its  full  authority,  or  to  resist  aggression,  or 
to  protect  its  citizens  or  their  property. 
Discriminating  duties  on  American  com 
merce,  scant  courtesy  in  diplomatic  relations, 
the  impressment  of  American  seamen,  the 
search  and  seizure  of  vessels  and  their  crews, 
were  only  the  more  striking  examples  of 
the  injuries  to  which,  because  of  its  youth, 
weakness,  and  inexperience,  the  nation  had 
been  obliged  to  submit,  and  against  which 
its  dignified  protests  had  commonly  gone 
unheeded. 


9;>  FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

With  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  however,  in  December,  1814,  the 
long  years  of  qualified  dependence  came 
to  an  end.  To  be  sure,  the  treaty  itself  con 
tained  no  reference  to  impressment,  or  the 
right  of  search,  or  arbitrary  interference 
with  American  commerce,  all  of  which 
Madison,  in  his  war  message  of  June  1,  1812, 
had  adduced  as  sufficient  grounds  for  a 
declaration  of  war;  but  it  was  generally 
understood  that,  though  not  formally  re 
nounced,  none  of  these  assumed  rights  would 
be  exercised  again.  Nor  was  public  opinion 
in  this  country  disturbed  by  the  fact  that 
this  renewed  recognition  of  the  complete 
independence  which  the  United  States  had 
always  claimed  was  due  much  less  to  Eng 
land's  failure  in  the  war,  than  to  the  over 
throw  of  Napoleon  and  the  end  of  the 
gigantic  European  struggle  which,  to  English 
men  at  least,  had  seemed  to  make  the  con 
duct  of  Great  Britain  justifiable.  It  was 
enough  that  there  had  been  a  war,  that  the 
United  States  had  won,  and  that  now  there 
was  peace.  As  to  the  precise  causes  of  the 
war,  men  might  differ  as  long  as  they  chose 
to  debate,  but  there  was  general  agreement, 
in  England  as  well  as  in  America,  that  those 
causes  would  never  operate  again. 

The  territory  included  within  the  limits 
of  the  United  States  in  1815  extended  from 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  the  Rocky  Mountain 


THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1815       3 

watershed  on  the  west,  and  south  to  the 
Spanish  provinces  of  East  and  West  Florida. 
Portions  of  the  northern  boundary,  from  the 
mouth  of  the  St.  Croix  River  to  the  St. 
Lawrence,  and  from  the  western  end  of 
Lake  Superior  to  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
were  as  yet  undetermined  notwithstanding 
several  attempts  to  agree  upon  the  line. 
The  original  area  of  1783  had  been  more 
than  doubled  by  the  purchase  of  Louisiana, 
in  1803.  Beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
where  Spain  still  held  possession,  there  was 
as  yet  no  thought  of  ultimate  American  occu 
pation;  but  the  Florida  provinces,  possess 
ing  no  natural  land  boundaries,  yet  at  the 
same  time  blocking  the  natural  expansion  of 
the  United  States  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
were  already  coveted  and  were  destined 
shortly  to  be  absorbed.  Territorially,  the 
country  was  a  unit;  expansion  had  followed 
natural  lines,  and  the  variety  of  soil  and 
climate,  the  extent  of  coast  line,  and  the 
control  of  the  great  Mississippi  valley,  made 
the  area  occupied  by  the  United  States 
preeminently  fit  for  the  home  of  a  great 
nation. 

The  population  had  long  been  growing 
apace.  The  3,900,000  inhabitants  in  1790 
had  become  7,200,000  in  1810,  and  were  to 
be  9,600,000  in  1820.  Virginia,  with  a 
population  of  974,000  in  1810,  was  the 
largest  State,  with  New  York  second  and 


10    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Pennsylvania  third  in  rank.  By v  1820, 
however,  New  York,  with  a  population  then 
of  1,372,000,  rose  to  first  place,  with  Vir 
ginia  second  and  Pennsylvania  third.  While 
no  State  lost  population  between  1810  and 
1820,  the  older  and  smaller  States  of  the 
Atlantic  seaboard,  with  virtually  their  entire 
area  occupied  by  settlement,  showed,  with 
one  or  two  exceptions,  the  smallest  gains. 
The  lower  South  and  the  West,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  exhibiting  prodigious  growth. 
Alabama,  admitted  as  a  State  in  1819,  had 
127,000  people  in  1820;  Louisiana,  with 
76,000  in  1810,  returned  152,000  ten  years 
later.  Between  1810  and  1820  the  population 
of  Kentucky  leaped  from  406,000  to  564,000, 
that  of  Tennessee  from  261,000  to  422,000, 
that  of  Ohio  from  230,000  to  581,000,  and 
that  of  Indiana  from  24,000  to  147,000. 
Even  the  then  extreme  frontier  State  of 
Illinois  grew,  in  the  same  decade,  from 
12,000  to  55,000. 

The  source  of  this  great  gain  in  numbers 
was  still,  as  it  had  been  from  the  beginning, 
mainly  the  natural  increase  of  population; 
foreign  immigration,  exclusive  of  the  impor 
tation  of  negro  slaves,  being  as  yet  of  slight 
importance.  The  United  States  was  still 
presenting  the  conditions  which  economists 
have  pointed  to  as  favorable  for  a  maximum 
natural  growth  in  numbers:  namely,  a 
healthy  climate,  fertile  soil,  abundance  of 


.THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1815      11 

cheap  land,  freedom  from  pestilence  or 
devastating  epidemics,  and,  save  for  two 
and  a  half  years,  long-continued  peace. 
Under  such  circumstances  the  birth  rate 
tends  to  be  high,  families  are  large,  and  the 
duration  of  life  is  long.  Perhaps  nowhere 
in  the  world  was  there  greater  opportunity 
for  every  man  to  earn  a  living  for  himself 
and  his  family,  a  higher  standard  of  domestic 
comfort,  a  more  abundant  food  supply, 
or  better  physical  conditions  for  health, 
longevity,  and  the  care  of  young  children, 
than  in  the  United  States  in  the  first  quarter 
of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  distribution  of  population,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  very  different  from  that 
with  which  we  of  the  present  day  are  famil 
iar.  In  1810  there  were  only  eleven  towns 
or  cities  in  the  United  States  with  a  popu 
lation  of  8000  or  over,  and  but  thirteen  such 
places  in  1820;  and  in  each  of  these  years 
this  urban  population  comprised  less  than 
five  per  cent,  of  the  total.  Less  than  one- 
third  of  the  total  area  of  the  country  was 
properly  to  be  regarded  as  settled.  Exten 
sive  tracts  in  northern  New  York,  north 
western  Pennsylvania,  western  Virginia  and 
northern  Ohio  were  still  practically  unoc 
cupied,  as  were  nearly  half  of  Georgia  and 
Alabama  and  two-thirds  of  Mississippi, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois.  Between  the  Ohio, 
the  Mississippi,  and  the  Great  Lakes  seven- 


12    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN  ' 

eighths  of  the  country  was  still  a  wilderness 
in  1820.  At  the  close  of  the  War  of  1812, 
nine-tenths  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  were  living  in  country  districts  or 
small  communities,  for  the  most  part  within 
easy  reach  of  the  ocean,  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
or  a  navigable  waterway. 

The  Union  comprised,  in  1815,  eighteen 
States  and  five  Territories,  besides  the 
District  of  Columbia.  To  the  thirteen 
original  States  had  been  added  Vermont  in 
1791,  Kentucky  in  1792,  Tennessee  in  1796, 
Ohio  in  1802,  and  Louisiana  in  1812.  Maine 
was  still  a  part  of  Massachusetts,  and  was 
not  admitted  as  a  State  until  1820.  The 
Territory  of  Indiana,  which  at  first  had  com 
prised  all  of  the  original  Northwest  Terri 
tory  not  included  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  had 
been  reduced  by  the  formation  of  Michigan 
Territory  in  1805,  and  of  Illinois  Territory 
in  1809;  the  remainder  became  the  State  of 
Indiana  in  1816,  Illinois  following  in  1818. 
The  Territory  of  Mississippi  was  coexten 
sive  with  the  later  States  of  Alabama  and 
Mississippi,  save  for  their  extreme  southern 
portions,  which  still  belonged  to  Spain. 
Mississippi  entered  the  Union  as  a  State  in 
1817,  and  Alabama  in  1819.  The  Terri 
tory  of  Missouri,  organized  in  1812,  com 
prised  all  of  the  Louisiana  acquisition  not 
included  in  the  State  of  Louisiana. 

In  the  organization  of  their  governments 


THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1815      13 

the  States  presented  in  the  main  the  same 
general  characteristics.  With  the  excep 
tion  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  each 
had  a  written  constitution  emanating  from 
the  people,  and  subject  to  amendment  or 
revision  either  at  stated  intervals  or  whenever 
the  people  chose.  Each  had  a  governor,  a 
legislature  of  two  houses,  and  a  graded  system 
of  courts.  The  democratic  movement  which 
had  carried  Jefferson  to  the  presidency  in 
1801,  and  which  was  shortly  to  bring  Andrew 
Jackson  to  the  same  office,  had  already  shown 
itself  in  State  constitutions  in  more  liberal 
provisions  regarding  the  suffrage,  an  increase 
of  legislative  power  at  the  expense  of  the 
executive,  and  a  tendency  to  elective  rather 
than  appointive  officers.  With  the  excep 
tion  of  Louisiana,  each  had  inherited  the 
English  common  law,  and  had  begun  to 
build  about  it  a  structure  of  statutes  and 
judicial  decisions.  The. federal  courts*  how- 
ever,  had  already Gegun tojexercise  a  uni-  ^ 
fy  ing  "influence  upojkjhe /laws  of  the  States, 
^although  the.  gr£M_.cgELstitudonal  decisions 
ioFTlEiS^ustice  Marshall^werer  lor  the  most 
part,  yet  Tx>  come._ 

""'Iirto'caJ  government,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  was  much  diversity.  New  England 
still  clung  to  the  town  meeting,  with  its 
direct  control  of  local  interests  by  the  whole 
body  of  voters,  and  its  invaluable  oppor 
tunity  for  training  in  public  speaking  and  in 


14    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

the  practical  duties  of  citizenship.  The 
South  still  had  its  old  type  of  county  govern 
ment,  a  representative  system  under  which 
the  larger  landed  gentry  retained  effective 
political  control.  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
and  Pennsylvania  had  mixed  systems,  com 
pounded  of  both  town  and  county  ele 
ments,  and  befitting  States  in  which  populous 
communities  were  more  numerous  than  in 
the  South,  and  the  county  more  important 
than  in  New  England.  In  Ohio,  as  in  the 
other  States  presently  to  be  formed  west  and 
north  of  it,  the  early  settlers  were  inclined 
to  reproduce  the  type  of  local  institutions 
with  which  they  had  been  familiar  in  the 
States  from  which  they  came;  with  the 
result  that  in  the  northern  sections,  peopled 
principally  by  emigrants  from  New  England 
and  New  York,  a  modified  town  system  was 
established,  while  in  the  southern  portions, 
mainly  settled  from  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina,  a  modified  county  system  was  the 
rule. 

If  it  was  true  that  the  War  of  1812  freed 
the  United  States  from  a  certain  irritating 
subjection  to  England  and  France  which 
had  been  its  bane,  it  was  also  true  that  the 
war  went  far  to  break  the  hold  of  old  party. 
*'-  allegiances,  and  opened  the  way  to  a  recon 
struction  of  parties  and  a  far-reaching  read- 
jtfstment  of  political  life.  The  Federalists, 
memorable  for  the  skill  with  which  they 


THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1815      15 

had  launched  the  new  republic,  had  over 
reached  themselves  in  the  Alien  and  Sedi 
tion  Acts  of  1798;  and  after  their  defeat  by 
the  Republicans,  under  the  astute  leader 
ship  of  Jefferson,  in  1800,  they  were  never;  j 
again  able  to  win  a  national  election  or  con-  I 
trol  either  house  of  Congress.  In  New 
England,  especially  in  Massachusetts,  and 
in  a  few  other  States,  they  were  still  a  power, 
but  their  opposition  to  the  war,  their  efforts 
to  prevent  the  use  of  the  militia  by  the 
Federal  Government,  and  their  connection 
with  the  Hartford  Convention,  had  gone 
far  to  dim  their  historical  prestige,  and 
withered  them  from  a  national  party  to  a 
State  or  local  faction. 

The  aristocracy  of  birth,  education,  wealth, 
business  or  social  prominence,  and  public 
service  which  Federalism  represented,  em 
bodying  as  it  did  the  more  obvious  vested 
rights  and  interests  of  the  community,  gave 
to  the  country  a  strong  and  efficient  govern 
ment.  It  was,  indeed,  of  inestimable  advan 
tage  that  a  party  directly,  if  to  some  degree 
selfishly,  interested  in  a  firm  and  orderly 
conduct  of  national  affairs,  controlled  the 
government  during  its  formative  years. 
An  administrative  organization  was  per 
fected,  the  national  debt  funded,  a  sound 
financial  system  inaugurated,  and  a  dignified 
diplomacy  exercised.  The  sympathy  and 
cooperation  of  a  well-to-do  and  educated 


16    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

class  were  secured  for  the  maintenance  of 
a  government  which,  however  oligarchical 
at  times  in  form,  was  in  spirit  a  government 
by  the  best  for  the  benefit  of  all. 

It  was  the  mission  of  Jeffersonian  Repub 
licanism  to  replace  this  aristocratic  regime 
by  a  new  social  order,  under  which  the 
people  at  large  should  enjoy  more  direct 
political  control.  Jefferson,  more  familiar 
than  any  American  of  his  time  with  the 
causes  and  principles  of  the  French  Revo 
lution,  and  sympathizing  at  heart  with  the 
great  democratic  ferment  of  which  the  Revo 
lution  was  only  the  more  violent  manifesta 
tion,  sought,  by  reducing  government  to 
its  lowest  terms,  to  apply  what  he  believed 
to  be  the  original  theory  of  the  Constitution : 
a  government  of  strictly  delegated  powers, 
under  which  whatever  was  not  specifically 
granted  to  the  nation  was  absolutely  with 
held.  He  had  opposed  the  creation  of  a 
national  bank,  in  1791,  not  because  a  bank 
might  not  be  a  good  thing,  but  because  the 
Constitution  did  not  authorize  it;  and  the 
written  opinion  in  which  he  summarized  his 
views  is  still  the  best  epitome  of  his  political 
philosophy  and  of  his  theory  of  American 
constitutional  law. 

Yet  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  new  policy 
was,  on  the  whole,  strikingly  different  in 
practice  from  the  old.  Jefferson  did,  indeed, 
cut  down  the  army  and  navy,  abolish  a 


THE  UNITED  STATES  IN   1815      17 

superfluous  set  of  federal  courts,  repeal 
internal  taxes,  replace  Federalist  civil  officers 
with  Republicans,  and  greatly  reduce  the 
debt.  The  general  administrative  system, 
however,  could  not  be  materially  altered, 
since  it  conformed  to  the  Constitution  and 
to  the  needs  of  the  country.  Jefferson  could 
reduce  the  national  government  to  lower 
terms,  but  the  general  scheme  framed  by 
the  Federalists  could  hardly  be  dispensed 
with.  Nor  was  he  entirely  consistent  either 
as  a  Democrat  or  as  a  strict  constructionist. 
The  last  six  years  of  his  presidency  saw  the 
restoration  of  about  the  same  measure  of 
formality  in  executive  life  as  had  character 
ized  Washington  and  Adams ;  and  he  stepped 
outside  of  the  Constitution  and  bought 
Louisiana,  without  perceptible  tremor  or 
misgiving,  when  in  his  judgment  the  national 
welfare  required  it. 

Political  consistency,  however,  has  never 
been  rigorously  exacted  from  statesmen, 
and  Jefferson  is  entitled  to  as  great  latitude 
of  judgment  as  has  commonly  been  accorded 
to  other  great  popular  leaders.  And  the 
political  and  social  changes  which  took  place 
in  the  decade  of  which  the  War  of  1812  is 
the  center  were,  from  most  points  of  view, 
very  considerable.  A  new  generation  of 
young  men,  to  whom  the  American  Revolu 
tion  was  a  glorious  tradition  rather  than  a 
personal  experience,  came  upon  the  stage 


18    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

and  took  direction  of  political  affairs.  It 
was  they  who,  under  the  magnetic  leader 
ship  of  Henry  Clay,  pushed  the  war  to  a 
successful  conclusion.  Old  party  lines  be 
came  dim  or  disappeared  altogether,  clearing 
the  ground  for  new  issues  and  new  doctrines. 
The  basis  of  suffrage  widened  with  the 
gradual  removal  of  religious  and  property 
qualifications.  Most  potent  of  all  was  the 
new  consciousness  of  nationality,  born  of 
common  participation  in  a  successful  war. 

Of  this  new  national  spirit  the  West  was 
easily  the  most  complete  embodiment.  * '  The 
West"  of  that  day  had  barely  touched  Lake 
Michigan  or  the  Mississippi,  although  to 
most  men  in  the  East  anything  beyond  the 
Appalachian  Mountains  seemed  indefinitely 
remote.  Raw  and  crude  as  it  was,  however, 
the  West  had  drawn  its  people  from  the 
best  blood  of  the  older  States,  and  was  as 
Anglo-Saxon  a  region  as  any  in  the  country. 
Life  was  hard  and  rude,  conveniences  few, 
manners  unconventional  and  often  rough; 
for  the  men  who  were  conquering  a  wilder 
ness,  fighting  Indians  and  making  homes 
were  poor,  »"*«l  cared  little  about  a  new 
comer's  social  origins  provided  he  was  honest 
and  intelligent  and  could  work. 

Such  a  region  became  inevitably  the  home 
of  democratic  freedom.  There  were  no 
old  families,  no  long  tradition  of  public 
office,  no  inherited  estates,  no  marked  con- 


THE  UNITED  STATES  IN   1815      19 

trasts  of  wealth.  In  their  place  was  equality 
of  opportunity  for  everyone  who  cared  to 
make  his  own  way.  Abundance  of  cheap 
land  increased  the  number  of  landed  pro 
prietors,  widened  the  basis  of  suffrage,  and 
made  the  farmers  the  foundation  of  a  free 
society.  There  was  not  wanting,  of  course, 
the  inevitable  defect  of  the  quality:  impa 
tience  of  restraint,  frank  contempt  for  form 
and  custom,  slight  regard  for  experience  or 
training,  and  rough  and  ready  ways  of 
bringing  things  to  pass.  Yet  even  these 
characteristics,  irritating  as  they  long  were 
to  the  more  formal  and  conservative  East, 
were  only  the  temporary  and  superficial 
expressions  of  the  democratic  spirit  now 
planted  as  firmly  in  America  as  in  Europe, 
and  whose  struggle  for  recognition  and  con 
trol  gives  to  the  history  of  the  nineteenth 
century  its  absorbing  interest. 

Yet  there  were  disturbing  features.  With 
all  its  fresh  consciousness  of  nationality, 
unity  of  national  spirit  had  yet  to  be  at 
tained.  Between  tha-slavc  States  -and  the — 
free  States"*~~tneT jdiff erence  wni  nna  not  - 
merely  of  climate  or  of  race  relationship, 
but'-of  civilization.  The  East  feared  and 
distrusted  the  West,  where  the  admission  of 
new  States,  each  with  two  senators,  threat 
ened  the  influence  of  the  East  in  Congress. 
The  foreign  slave  trade,  prohibited  JDV  law 
in  1807,  had  not  been  prohibited  in  fact; 


20    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

the  domestic  slave  trade  flourished;  and  in 
Indiana  Territory  there  had  been  public 
opposition  to  the  anti-slavery  provision  of 
the  Northwest  Ordinance  of  1787.  No 
effective  scheme  of  national  party  organi 
zation  had  yet  been  developed,  conventions 
and  platforms  were  still  half  a  generation 
in  the  future,  and  the  selection  of  candidates 
for  President  and  Vice-President  was  left 
to  a  self -constituted  congressional  caucus. 

The  United  States  of  1815  was  a  vast, 
thinly  settled  country  without  railroads  or 
telegraphs,  with  but  few  canals,  and  with 
the  steamboat  just  beginning  to  be  per 
fected.  The  construction  of  turnpikes  had 
been  entered  upon,  but  most  of  the  common 
roads  were  badly  laid  out,  poorly  built,  and 
in  wretched  condition  in  wet  weather  or 
when  much  used.  The  traveler  who  could 
not  go  by  sailing  vessel  along  the  coast 
made  his  journey  by  stagecoach,  or  more 
often  by  private  carriage  or  on  horseback. 
Inns  were  small,  dirty,  and  crowded  to  the 
limit  of  decency.  Emigrants  to  the  West 
made  their  way  in  ox-carts,  driving  their 
cattle  before  them.  Communities  fifty 
miles  apart  were  more  remote  than  cities 
which  today  are  separated  by  a  thousand 
miles. 

A  high  standard  of  domestic  comfort 
prevailed,  notwithstanding  the  inconven 
iences,  as  they  would  now  seem,  of  orciinary 


THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1815      21 

domestic  life.  Beautiful  examples  of  colonial 
architecture  were  to  be  found  in  Salem  and 
Providence,  in  Boston,  New ,  York,  and 
Philadelphia,  and  in  tidewater  Virginia. 
The  average  farmhouse  of  the  better  class 
was  commodious  and  comfortable.  But 
houses  were  still  heated  by  open  fires  or 
stoves,  lighted  by  candles  or  whale-oil 
lamps,  and  supplied  with  water  from  springs 
or  wells  on  the  premises.  Spinning,  weaving, 
and  dyeing  were  common  household  occu 
pations,  and  ready-made  clothing  was  un 
known.  Hand  labor  was  the  rule  in  the 
shop  and  on  the  farm,  ministers  received  a 
part  of  their  meager  salaries  in  food  or  fuel, 
doctors  bled,  blistered,  and  purged,  lawyers 
and  judges  "rode  the  circuit,"  and  school 
teachers  plied  the  rod  and  "boarded  'round." 
Intellectually  the  nineteenth  century  in 
America  had  not  yet  come  to  differ  radically 
from  the  eighteenth.  Common  schools  and 
academies,  found  everywhere  in  the  North 
and  older  West,  gave  meager  elementary 
instruction.  For  young  men  who  intended 
to  be  doctors,  lawyers,  or  ministers,  upwards 
of  thirty-five  colleges  offered  courses  of 
classical  study,  to  be  supplemented,  in  the 
case  of  lawyers  and  doctors,  by  private 
study  under  some  local  practitioner.  Higher 
education  for  women  and  technical  or  indus 
trial  education  were  not  yet  regarded  as 
necessary.  A  few  of  the  larger  towns  pos- 


22    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

sessed  circulating  libraries,  and  recent  Eng- 
glish  and  French  books  were  not  infre 
quently  seen;  but  books  in  general  were 
more  expensive  than  now,  and  "cheap 
editions"  had  not  yet  begun  to  spread  good 
literature  among  the  masses.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  careful  reading  of  good  books, 
especially  the  Bible,  was  a  habit  of  the  age, 
and  helped  to  form  an  English  style  which, 
notably  in  the  case  of  public  men,  was  often 
as  correct,  forcible,  and  polished  as  the  best 
English  speech  or  writing  of  the  day. 

The  religious  life  of  the  United  States 
still  resembled,  in  the  main,  that  of  the  later 
colonial  period.  Congregationalism  was  still, 
to  some  extent,  a  State  church  in  Massa 
chusetts  and  Connecticut,  as  well  as  the  pre 
vailing  faith  of  the  influential  classes  else 
where  in  New  England.  Part  of  the  hostility 
to  Jefferson  in  that  section  was  due  to  his 
free  religious  views  —  views  which  today 
would  perhaps  cause  him  to  be  classed  as  a 
Unitarian,  but  which  in  his  time  were 
regarded  as  near  akin  to  atheism.  The 
Unitarian  movement,  however,  had  already 
been  launched,  and  was  shortly  to  precipi 
tate  in  New  England  an  epoch-making 
religious  change.  The  Episcopal  body,  not 
yet  strong  in  New  England,  was  numerous 
in  the  Middle  States  and  predominant  in 
the  South,  although  in  both  sections  the 
Baptists  and  Methodists  were  strong  rivals. 


THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1815      23 

In  the  West  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  and 
Methodists  predominated,  and  on  the  fron 
tier  the  circuit  preacher,  as  devoted  as  was 
ever  missionary  priest,  carried  the  min 
istrations  of  religion  far  and  wide.  Great 
revivals  periodically  swept  over  whole  com 
munities,  and  theological  controversy  raged 
as  sects  multiplied. 

Between  the  East  and  the  West,  not 
withstanding  certain  obvious  contrasts,  there 
was,  on  the  whole,  essential  social  likeness. 
To  pass  the  southern  boundary  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  on  the  other  hand,  was  to  enter  a 
different  community.  Here  the  forced  labor 
of  negro  slaves,  mainly  spent  in  the  pro 
duction  of  cotton,  rice,  and  tobacco,  formed 
the  basis  of  economic  prosperity.  Between 
the  whites  and  the  negroes  was  fixed  the 
impassable  gulf  of  race  and  color;  and 
although  the  majority  of  whites  owned  few 
or  no  slaves,  it  was  the  slaveholding  aris 
tocracy  that  set  the  tone  of  social  and  polit 
ical  life.  Plantation  life  did,  indeed,  develop 
masterful  men,  able  and  aggressive  in  polit 
ical  leadership,  chivalrous  and  polished 
beyond  the  common  habit  of  the  North. 
But  slavery  was  already  a  "peculiar  insti 
tution,"  out  of  harmony  with  the  free  spirit 
of  the  age,  and  putting  more  and  more  upon 
the  defensive  the  section  that  lived  by  it. 


24    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

and  the  growing  industrialism  of  the^North, 
^itk-  4t&  freet-WbtJf^nd  more  opeirTnmcf, 
there  was  at  bottom  an  "  irrepressible  con 
flict,"  -concealed  for  the  moment  by  the  new 
feeling^  of  njijioiiality  and  the  jiew^realiza- 
tion  of  indepeiSen^eT^buf^^stmeorTo"  be, 
for  neaTl^rflfty^^arspthe  one  overshadowing 
question  of  American  poiitics. 


CHAPTER   II 

ECONOMIC     AND      POLITICAL     READJUSTMENT 

1815-1828 

THE  year  1808  marks  the  beginning,  for 
the  United  States,  of  a  new  period  of  indus 
trial  development.  The  passage  of  the 
Embargo  Act  in  that  year,  followed  in  1809 
by  the  Non-intercourse  Act,  and  then,  three 
years  later,  by  war,  practically  stopped  for 
the  time  being  the  importation  of  European 
manufactures,  and  compelled  the  country 
to  rely  upon  its  own  resources.  The  inven 
tion  of  the  cotton  gin,  in  1793,  had  for  the 
first  time  made  it  possible  to  put  cotton  upon 
the  market  in  large  quantities,  and  had 
greatly  stimulated  the  production  of  that 
staple.  Yet  in  1804  there  were  only  four 
cotton  mills  in  the  United  States,  and  Eng 
land  still  took  the  larger  part  of  the  American 
crop.1  New  England  capital  was  mainly 
invested  in  shipping  and  foreign  trade, 
while  the  South,  apparently  set  apart  by 
nature  for  the  production  of  a  few  great 
staples,  saw  no  profit  in  manufactures  equal 

1  Bogart,  Economic  History  of  the  United  States,  142. 
25 


26    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

to  that  already  being  realized  from  agri 
culture. 

The  period  from  1808  to  1815  saw  the 
establishment,  or  the  development  from 
previous  small  beginnings,  of  manufactures 
of  cotton,  woolen,  and  linen  textiles;  of  iron, 
leather,  paper,  and  glass;  of  candles,  soap, 
earthenware,  and  oil;  and  of  numerous  other 
articles  of  general  use.  The  annual  value  of 
manufactured  products  was  estimated  in 
1810  at  nearly  $199,000,000,  an  increase  of 
$79,000,000  over  the  previous  year.  As 
foreign  trade  was  for  the  time  being  nearly 
destroyed,  first  by  the  embargo  and  then  by 
Napoleonic  decrees  and  British  orders  in 
council,  the  production  was  almost  exclu 
sively  for  home  consumption. 

The  return  of  peace  brought  in  upon  the 
American  market  a  flood  of  English  manu 
factured  goods,  a  large  part  of  which  repre 
sented  accumulated  stocks,  and  which  were 
offered  at  prices  that  for  the  moment  defied 
competition.  Imports  rose  in  value  from 
less  than  $13,000,000  in  1814  to  $147,000,000 
in  1816,  a  figure  higher  than  was  attained 
in  any  subsequent  year  until  1850.  The 
customs  receipts  exceeded  $36,000,000,  nearly 
three  times  the  amount  estimated  by  Dallas, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  consti 
tuting  nearly  four-fifths  of  the  total  receipts 
of  the  government  for  that  year.1 

1  Dewey,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  161. 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        27 

With  American  capital  and  labor  thus 
threatened,  and  with  peace  in  Europe 
opening  a  prospect  of  new  markets  for  Ameri 
can  products,  a  demand  for  protection  was 
inevitable.  Madison  urged  protection  in 
his  annual  message  in  December,  1815,  and 
Dallas  submitted  an  elaborate  report  and 
the  draft  of  a  bill.  Out  of  the  debates  in 
Congress,  reinforced  by  a  general  demand 
throughout  the  country,  came  the  Tariff 
Act  of  1816.  Although  not,  as  has  often 
been  said,  the  first  protective  tariff,  it  was 
the  first  in  which  duties  were  consistently 
imposed  with  a  view  to  protection  rather 
than  revenue.  The  vote  in  favor  of  the  bill 
was  not,  indeed,  overwhelming.  New  Eng 
land  was  divided,  though  upon  details  rather 
than  upon  principle;  while  the  South  cast 
thirty-four  votes  in  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives  against  the  bill  to  twenty-three  in 
its  favor.  Webster,  speaking  for  the  com 
mercial  interests  of  New  England,  argued 
against  the  bill,  while  Calhoun  of  South 
Carolina  supported  it.  On  the  whole,  how 
ever,  the  act  was  treated  as  a  measure  of 
general  national  benefit,  dictated  by  the 
exigency  of  a  national  danger. 

A  few  days  before  the  Tariff  Act  became 
law,  Madison  affixed  his  signature  to  a 
bill  creating  a  national  bank.  The  first 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  chartered  in 
1791  at  the  suggestion  of  Alexander  Ham- 


28    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

ilton,  with  a  capital  of  $10,000,000,  had 
expired  by  limitation  in  1811.  A  bill  to 
renew  the  charter  failed  in  the  Senate  by  the 
casting  vote  of  the  Vice-President,  George 
Clinton.  For  the  next  five  years  the  gov 
ernment  funds  were  intrusted  to  State 
banks,  of  which  there  were  eighty-eight 
in  1811.  Dallas,  who  became  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  in  1814,  strongly  favored 
a  return  'to  the  old  system;  and  after  the 
veto  by  Madison  of  a  bank  bill  in  1815, 
a  bill  creating  the  second  Bank  of  the 
United  States  finally  became  law  April  16, 
1816. 

The  act  of  1816  provided  for  a  bank  with 
a  capital  of  $35,000,000.  One-fifth  of  the 
capital  was  held  by  the  United  States,  which 
also  was  given  a  corresponding  representa 
tion  in  the  board  of  directors.  Branches  were 
to  be  established  in  the  several  States  and 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  main  office 
being  in  Philadelphia.  The  funds  of  the 
government  were  to  be  deposited  in  the 
bank  or  its  branches,  unless  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  at  any  time  directed  other 
wise.  In  return  for  the  use  of  the  govern 
ment  moneys,  the  bank  was  to  act  as  the 
fiscal  agent  of  the  United  States;  was 
authorized  to  issue  notes,  to  the  amount  of 
its  capital  stock,  which  the  government 
undertook  to  receive  so  long  as  they  were 
redeemable  at  par  in  specie;  and  was 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        29 

guaranteed  the  enjoyment  of  its  monopoly 
privileges  for  twenty  years. 

With  the  enactment  of  a  protective  tariff 
and  the  erection  of  a  bank,  the  young 
Republicans  in  Congress  had  laid  the  foun 
dations  of  a  broad  national  policy.  It  was 
clear,  however,  that  the  republicanism  of 
1816  was  very  different  from  the  body  of 
doctrine  that  bore  that  name  before  the  war. 
Neither  protection  nor  a  bank  could  be 
justified  save  under  a  broad,  or  loose,  con 
struction  of  the  federal  Constitution,  such 
as  Hamilton  had  brilliantly  championed  in 
1790-91.  The  whole  sum  and  substance  of 
the  strict  construction  theory  of  the  Con 
stitution  had  been  stated  by  Jefferson,  as 
it  happened,  in  an  official  opinion  against 
the  constitutionality  of  the  first  bank.  The 
young  Republicans  had  now  seized  the 
constitutional  mantle  of  the  Federalists, 
and  in  so  doing  prepared  the  way  for  the 
new  alignment  of  parties  which  was  presently 
to  take  place. 

The  attitude  of  the  three  great  leaders 
who  for  the  next  generation  were  to  hold 
the  center  of  the  political  stage  is  as  inter 
esting  as  it  is  important.  Webster,  shortly 
to  be  acclaimed  as  the  greatest  of  American 
constitutional  lawyers,  opposed  the  tariff 
and  the  bank.  Calhoun,  the  intellectual 
leader  of  the  South  and  before  long  the  chief 
exponent  of  State  rights,  strict  construe- 


SO    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

tion,  and  nullification,  was  now  a  nation 
alist  and  a  broad  constructionist,  supporting 
both  the  tariff  and  the  bank.  Clay,  who  as 
Senator  from  Kentucky  had  opposed  the 
renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  first  bank  in 
1811,  as  Speaker  of  the  House  supported  the 
bank  bill  of  1816.  Within  a  dozen  years 
the  positions  of  Webster  and  Calhoun,  as 
also  the  positions  of  the  sections  which  they 
represented,  were  to  be  reversed,  and  each 
was  supporting  that  which  had  formerly 
been  condemned. 

To  the  demand  for  a  protective  tariff  and 
a  bank  was  added  the  demand  for  federal 
aid  to  internal  improvements.  The  West 
of  1815  was,  indeed,  little  more  than  the 
now  near-by  country  just  beyond  the  Appa 
lachian  Mountains;  yet  it  could  be  reached 
only  by  a  toilsome  journey  over  roads  which 
as  yet  showed  little  engineering  skill.  More 
over,  while  such  highways  as  there  were 
might  suffice  for  emigrants,  post-riders,  or 
occasional  travelers,  they  hindered  almost 
as  much  as  they  aided  the  development  of 
commerce.  The  prosperity  of  the  West 
depended  upon  the  development  of  roads 
and  canals  and  the  improvement  of  river 
channels,  by  means  of  which  the  grain, 
flour,  cattle,  and  other  products  of  the 
region  could  reach  a  market. 

With  all  its  etiergy  and  ambition  the  West 
KS  yet  had  little  capital,  and  the  develop- 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        31 

ment  of  adequate  transportation  facilities 
on  so  vast  a  scale  seemed,  to  the  new  com 
munities,  beyond  their  power.  The  tide  of 
westward  migration  which  set  in  immedi 
ately  after  the  war  raised  again  the  question 
of  federal  aid.  It  was  urged  that  roads  and 
canals,  though  bringing  immediate  benefit 
to  the  towns  and  districts  through  which 
they  ran,  were  in  fact  only  links  in  the 
chain  of  interstate  highways,  indispensable 
to  commercial,  agricultural,  and  industrial 
growth,  serving  to  bind  the  people  of  the 
States  together,  and  a  necessary  safeguard 
in  case  of  war.  The  expense  of  construction 
and  maintenance,  accordingly,  ought  not 
to  be  devolved  upon  any  one  State,  but 
should  be  assumed  by  the  federal  govern 
ment  as  a  national  undertaking. 

Madison,  in  his  last  annual  message  in 
December,  1816,  urged  upon  the  considera 
tion  of  Congress  the  necessity  of  a  com 
prehensive  system  of  internal  improvements. 
When,  however,  Calhoun  secured  the  passage 
of  a  "bonus  bill,"  appropriating  for  that 
purpose  the  bonus  of  $1,500,000  which  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States  was  to  pay  for 
its  privileges,  together  with  the  dividends 
received  by  the  government  on  its  portion 
of  the  bank  stock,  Madison  vetoed  the  bill 
on  the  ground  that  a  constitutional  amend 
ment  authorizing  such  expenditure  was 
necessary.  Monroe,  who  succeeded  Madi- 


32    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

son  as  President  in  1817,  took  the  same  view. 
It  was  not  until  1825,  when  John  Quincy 
Adams  became  President,  that  internal 
improvements  received  active  executive 
support. 

In  the  meantime,  however,  the  Cumber 
land  Road,  begun  by  the  United  States  in 
1806,  was  extended  steadily  westward 
through  southern  Ohio  and  Indiana.  The 
first  steamboat  appeared  on  the  Ohio  in 
1811,  and  by  1816,  when  the  first  trip  up 
the  Mississippi  from  New  Orleans  was  made, 
there  were  at  least  fifteen  steamboats  ply 
ing  on  Western  rivers.  The  steamboat 
solved  the  problem  of  navigation  up  stream, 
but  for  many  years  a  vast  commerce  down 
stream  continued  to  be  carried  by  the 
cheaper  method  of  flatboats  or  rafts.  In 
1817,  convinced  that  federal  aid  could  not 
be  obtained,  the  State  of  New  York  began 
the  construction  of  the  Erie  Canal,  con 
necting  Lake  Erie  with  the  Hudson.  The 
completion  of  the  canal  in  1825  assured  the 
commercial  supremacy  of  New  York  City, 
at  the  same  time  that  it  greatly  facilitated 
travel  and  commerce  between  the  East  and 
the  West. 

With  protection,  a  national  bank,  and 
internal  improvements  as  starting-points, 
the  ground  was  being  cleared  for  the  for 
mation  of  a  new  political  party.  Consti 
tutionally  the  new  party  must  accept  Ham- 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        33 

ilton's  theory  of  implied  powers,  or  loose 
construction,  since  upon  that  ground  alone 
could  either  of  the  policies  just  mentioned 
be  justified.  It  was  evident  that  the  old 
Republican  party,  historically  bound  to 
strict  construction,  could  not  long  remain 
united  in  the  face  of  the  new  nationalism. 

The  leader  of  the  new  movement  was 
Henry  Clay,  who  since  1813  had  been  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  A  win 
some  orator  and  skillful  politician,  the  idol 
of  young  men  and  the  embodiment  of  the 
best  spirit  of  the  West,  Clay  was  preemi 
nently  fitted  for  the  task  of  forming  and 
directing  a  new  party;  and  his  aggressive 
championship  of  the  "American  system," 
as  he  styled  the  new  program,  won  for  it  a 
rapidly  increasing  support.  Closely  in  sym 
pathy  with  him  was  John  Quincy  Adams, 
Monroe's  Secretary  of  State:  a  statesman 
of  large  caliber  and  strong  national  spirit, 
destined,  if  precedent  should  continue  to 
be  regarded,  to  succeed  Monroe  in  the 
presidential  office.  Webster,  too,  though 
opposed  to  the  tariff  of  1816,  must  even 
tually  ally  himself  with  the  new  republican 
ism,  for  the  reason  that  the  constitutional 
doctrines  which,  as  a  lawyer,  he  was  already 
expounding  with  consummate  power  left 
him  no  other  ground  on  which  to  stand. 
And  when,  in  1819,  in  the  case  of  McCul- 
loch  vs.  Maryland,  the  Supreme  Court 


34    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

upheld  in  all  respects  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  there  was 
added  to  political  theory  the  final  weight 
of  judicial  decision. 

The  expansion  of  the  United  States  in 
the  direction  of  its  natural  boundaries, 
which  in  1803  had  added  to  the  original  area 
the  vast  province  of  Louisiana,  made  further 
progress  in  1819  in  the  acquisition  of  Florida. 
The  Spanish  province  of  West  Florida, 
with  the  important  port  of  Mobile,  had  been 
claimed  by  the  United  States  as  part  of 
Louisiana.  Spain,  however,  declined  to 
admit  the  claim  and  also  refused  to  sell. 
Accordingly,  in  1810,  Madison  took  it  by 
force,  and  in  1811  Congress,  by  a  secret 
act,  authorized  the  seizure  of  East  Florida 
also;  but  the  protest  of  Great  Britain  checked 
further  aggression,  and  in  1813  the  Ameri 
can  troops  were  withdrawn. 

The  position  of  the  Floridas,  preventing 
direct  access  by  land  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
and  affording  convenient  asylum  for  fugi 
tive  slaves  and  hostile  Indians,  was  peculiarly 
irritating  to  the  United  States.  The  Span 
ish  authorities,  embarrassed  by  the  unhappy 
condition  of  affairs  in  Spain,  could  not  or 
would  not  maintain  order.  In  1818  Andrew 
Jackson  invaded  East  Florida,  took  St. 
Marks  and  Pensacola,  and  summarily  execu 
ted  two  British  subjects.  February  22,  1819, 
Adams  concluded  with  Spain  a  treaty  by 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        35 

which,  in  return  for  the  assumption  of  certain 
claims  of  American  citizens  against  Spain, 
to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $5,000,000, 
East  and  West  Florida  were  ceded  to  the 
United  States.  The  southern  boundary  of 
the  United  States  was  thus  rounded  to  the 
Gulf,  and  the  control  of  the  Mississippi 
further  assured.  By  the  same  treaty  the 
western  boundary  of  the  United  States  was 
fixed,  beginning  in  the  Sabine  River,  and 
Spain  relinquished  all  claim  to  territory 
on  the  Pacific  north  of  the  forty-second 
parallel  —  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
present  State  of  California. 

While  the  negotiations  with  Spain  were 
proceeding,  and  before  the  treaty  was  signed, 
the  twin  issues  of  sectionalism  and  slavery 
challenged  the  attention  of  the  nation. 
Early  in  1818  there  had  been  presented  to 
Congress  the  application  of  the  legislature 
of  Missouri,  which  had  been  organized 
as  a  Territory  in  1812,  for  the  admission  of 
part  of  the  Territory  as  a  State.  February 
17,  1819,  the  House  passed  a  bill  for  admis 
sion  with  an  amendment  imposing  restric 
tions  on  the  further  extension  of  slavery  in 
the  new  State;  but  the  Senate  refused  to 
concur. 

December  14  Alabama  became  a  State. 
Of  the  twenty-two  States  now  in  the  Union, 
eleven  were  free  and  eleven  slave.  The 
disproportionate  growth  of  population  in 


36    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

the  North  and  the  South  had  long  since 
given  the  free  States  a  majority  in  the 
House;  but  with  the  Senate  equally  divided 
between  the  sections,  slavery  was  secure 
against  federal  interference.  The  admis 
sion  of  Missouri  with  slavery  would  not  only 
destroy  this  sectional  balance,  but  would 
also  perpetuate  slavery  in  a  region  north 
of  that  in  which  slave  labor  had  thus  far 
been  regarded  as  necessary. 

When  Congress  met  in  December,  1819, 
the  admission  of  Missouri  with  slavery  was 
again  urged.  In  the  meantime  the  people 
of  the  District  of  Maine,  with  the  approval 
of  Massachusetts,  had  held  a  constitutional 
convention  and  applied  for  admission  as  a 
State.  As  there  was  no  question  but  that 
Maine  would  be  free,  the  South  demanded 
the  recognition  of  slavery  in  Missouri  as  an 
equitable  offset. 

The  struggle  which  ensued  forms  a  land 
mark  in  the  history  of  slavery  in  the  United 
States.  The  House  passed  a  bill  to  admit 
Maine.  The  Senate  added  a  "rider"  in  the 
form  of  an  amendment  admitting  Missouri 
with  slavery,  but  prohibiting  slavery  for 
ever  in  the  remainder  of  the  territory  ac 
quired  from  France  north  of  36°  30'.  The 
House  rejected  the  amendment,  and  the  re 
sult  was  a  deadlock.  Throughout  the  country 
the  excitement  was  intense,  and  a  flood 
of  petitions,  remonstrances,  and  resolutions 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        37 

poured  in  upon  Congress.  A  compromise 
was  finally  effected  by  which  the  Senate 
agreed  to  allow  the  Maine  and  Missouri 
bills  to  be  voted  upon  separately,  while  the 
House  accepted  the  amendment  permitting 
slavery  in  Missouri  but  excluding  it  from 
the  remainder  of  the  Louisiana  purchase. 

In  March,  1820,  Maine  became  a  member 
of  the  Union.  The  admission  of  Missouri, 
however,  was  delayed.  When  the  Consti 
tution  of  Missouri  was  submitted  to  Congress 
for  approval,  it  was  found  to  contain  a 
clause  prohibiting  free  negroes  or  mulattoes 
from  entering  or  settling  in  the  State.  As 
this  was  apparently  a  violation  of  the  Federal 
Constitution  and  of  the  rights  of  citizens 
under  it,  the  legislature  of  Missouri  was 
required,  by  a  "solemn  public  act,"  to  give 
pledge  that  the  clause  in  question  should 
never  be  so  construed  as  to  deprive  any 
citizen  of  any  State  of  the  privileges  and 
immunities  to  which  he  was  entitled  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
legislature  accepted  the  condition,  and  in 
August,  1821,  Missouri  was  admitted. 

The  significance  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  lay  primarily  in  the  fact  that  it  estab 
lished  a  geographical  line,  north  of  which, 
save  in  Missouri,  slavery  was  forever  to  be 
prohibited,  but  south  of  which  it  was,  by 
inference,  to  be  permitted.  In  so  doing, 
Congress  asserted  its  right  not  only  to  ex- 


38    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

elude  slavery  from  a  portion  of  the  public 
domain,  but  also  to  determine,  in  this  re 
spect,  what  the  social  institutions  of  par 
ticular  States  should  be.  Only  remotely 
was  the  compromise  a  step  towards  aboli 
tion,  since  there  was  in  it  no  expression  of 
right  or  disposition  to  interfere  with  slavery 
in  any  State  in  which  it  had  hitherto  existed. 
What  the  compromise  did  was  to  put  slavery 
upon  the  defensive  by  stamping  it  as  a 
"peculiar  institution,"  permissible,  indeed, 
under  State  law,  but  subject  to  geographical 
restriction  in  the  interest  of  national  welfare. 
In  his  second  inaugural  address,  March, 
1821,  Monroe  congratulated  the  country 
upon  the  continuance  of  friendly  relations 
with  European  powers,  but  spoke  with 
some  anxiety  of  the  war  which  was  still  going 
on  between  Spain  and  its  American  colonies. 
The  opposition  to  Bourbon  domination  in 
Spain  had  been  taken  advantage  of  in  the 
Spanish-American  colonies,  and  by  1821  all 
of  them,  from  Mexico  southward,  had  de 
clared  their  independence  and  set  up  revo 
lutionary  governments.  When,  in  1823,  the 
so-called  Holy  Alliance  was  believed  to  be 
preparing  to  assist  Spain  in  reestablishing  its 
authority,  Great  Britain  proposed  to  the 
United  States  a  joint  declaration  against 
European  intervention  in  the  colonies;  but 
Adams,  who  did  not  care  to  see  the  United 
States  in  the  position  of  "a  cock-boat  to 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        39 

a  British  man-of-war,"  declined.  Russia, 
meantime,  had  advanced  a  claim  to  all  of 
the  Pacific  coast  of  North  America  north 
of  the  fifty-first  parallel,  and  closed  the 
region  to  foreign  traders. 

It  was  this  situation  that  called  out  the 
declaration  of  the  "Monroe  doctrine."  In 
his  annual  message  in  December,  1823, 
Monroe,  speaking  with  reference  to  Russia, 
declared  that  "the  American  continents, 
by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which 
they  have  assumed  and  maintain,  are  hence 
forth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  fu 
ture  colonization  by  any  European  powers." 
As  to  the  Spanish  colonies,  the  message 
announced  that  any  attempt  to  extend  the 
European  political  system  "to  any  portion 
of  this  hemisphere"  would  be  regarded  as 
"dangerous  to  our  peace  and* safety";  and 
that  interference  with  the  colonies  "for  the 
purpose  of  oppressing  them,  or  controlling, 
in  any  other  manner,  their  destiny,"  could 
be  viewed  in  no  other  light  than  "as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition 
towards  the  United  States."  The  warning 
was  effectual,  and  projects  of  intervention 
were  abruptly  dropped.  In  1824  Russia 
by  treaty  relinquished  its  claims  on  the 
Pacific  coast  south  of  54°  40'. 

Monroe  was  not  a  man  of  forceful  per 
sonality,  and  the  great  events  of  his  adminis 
trations  were  the  results  of  influences  over 


40    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

which  he  himself  exercised  little  control. 
The  successes  of  his  foreign  policy  are  to 
be  credited  to  Adams  rather  than  to  him. 
He  was,  however,  reflected  without  opposi 
tion  in  1820,  and  would  have  been  the  unani 
mous  choice  of  the  electors  but  for  the  ac 
tion  of  a  New  Hampshire  elector,  who  cast 
a  solitary  vote  for  Adams.  So  complete,  on 
the  surface,  was  the  obliteration  of  old  party 
lines  that  Monroe's  second  administration 
(1821-25)  came  to  be  known  as  the  "era 
of  good  feeling."  In  reality  the  period  was 
one  of  personal  followings  and  factional  dif 
ferences  out  of  which  were  presently  to  come 
a  general  political  reorganization,  a  new 
drawing  of  party  lines,  and  new  and  serious 
aspects  of  the  struggle  between  particularism 
and  nationalism. 

Of  the  new  issues  that  made  for  section 
alism,  that  of  the  tariff  seemed  most  threat 
ening.  The  tariff  of  1816,  though  affording 
a  higher  and  more  general  measure  of  pro 
tection  than  had  existed  before,  failed 
appreciably  of  its  object,  partly  because  of 
defects  in  the  act  itself,  and  partly  because 
of  a  financial  panic  in  1819.  In  1824,  ac 
cordingly,  a  general  revision  was  made, 
with  increased  protection  for  textiles,  iron, 
glass,  and  lead,  and  a  specific  duty  on  wool. 
New  England  divided  on  the  bill,  the  vote 
of  that  section  in  the  House  being  fifteen 
in  favor  to  twenty-three  in  opposition;  while 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        41 

in  the  South  only  one  vote  was  given 
for  the  bill  to  forty-seven  against  it.  In 
the  Middle  States,  on  the  other  hand,  sixty 
of  the  seventy -five  votes  were  given  for  the 
bill,  while  in  the  West  there  was  not  a  vote 
in  opposition. 

Clearly  the  tariff  was  becoming  a  sectional 
issue,  and  the  attitude  of  the  sections  was 
changing.  Webster,  still  representing  a 
commercial  constituency,  spoke  weightily 
against  the  bill;  but  New  England  as  a 
whole  had  read  the  signs  of  the  times,  and 
an  economic  revolution  which  was  soon  to 
transform  that  section  from  a  commercial 
to  a  manufacturing  region  was  already  well 
advanced.  The  South,  on  the  other  hand, 
with  no  manufactures  to  protect  and  with 
its  fortunes  bound  more  and  more  to  cotton, 
was  swinging  rapidly  towards  free  trade. 
And  when,  in  1828,  the  "tariff  of  abomina 
tions,"  with  its  extraordinarily  high  duties 
on  raw  materials,  became  law  by  the  unex 
pected  aid  of  New  England  votes,  Webster 
appeared  as  the  champion  of  protection, 
while  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina, 
adopting  an  elaborate  report  framed  by 
Vice-President  Calhoun,  solemnly  protested 
against  the  act  as  a  violation  of  the  Consti 
tution. 

The  multiplicity  of  candidates  in  the 
presidential  election  of  1824  showed  how 
completely  old  party  lines  had  disappeared. 


42    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

The  leading  candidate  was  John  Quincy 
Adams,  whose  position  and  services  as  Sec 
retary  of  State  gave  him  by  precedent  the 
first  claim.  Clay,  the  Speaker  of  the  House, 
and  like  Adams  a  broad  obstructionist, 
was  a  formidable  aspirant.  William  H. 
Crawford  of  Georgia,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  had  strong  support,  but  his  nomi 
nation  by  a  congressional  caucus,  an  early 
device  long  in  use  but  now  discredited,  hurt 
his  cause.  Andrew  Jackson  of  Tennessee, 
the  "hero  of  New  Orleans,"  was  sure  of 
strong  support,  although  his  supposed  sym 
pathy  with  protection  was  counted  upon 
to  weaken  his  candidacy  in  the  South. 
Calhoun,  the  Secretary  of  War,  coveted  the 
high  office,  but  stepped  aside  for  the  time 
being  to  accept  the  unimportant  honor  of 
the  Vice-Presidency. 

The  result  of  the  election  was  the  choice 
of  Calhoun  for  Vice-President,  but  no 
choice  for  President.  Of  the  electoral  votes 
Jackson  received  99,  Adams  84,  Crawford 
41,  and  Clay  37.  Under  the  Constitution 
the  House  of  Representatives  was  required 
to  choose  from  the  three  candidates  having, 
respectively,  the  highest  number  of  votes. 
The  influence  of  Clay,  who  was  ineligible, 
was  naturally  thrown  for  Adams,  and  the 
latter  was  elected.  The  outcome  had  been 
foreseen  before  the  choice  was  made,  and 
the  cry  of  a  "corrupt  bargain"  raised;  and 


POLITICAL  READJUSTMENT        43 

when,  in  March,  1825,  Adams  made  Clay 
his  Secretary  of  State,  the  truth  of  the  charge, 
which  Clay  had  indignantly  denied,  was  by 
many  regarded  as  conclusive. 

Jackson,  though  conceding  the  consti 
tutionality  of  the  election,  insisted  that  he 
himself  was  the  popular  choice,  and  that  the 
"will  of  the  people"  had  been  thwarted; 
and  he  lost  no  opportunity  to  spread,  as 
he  doubtless  sincerely  believed,  the  "cor 
rupt  bargain"  accusation.  John  Randolph, 
Senator  from  Virginia,  poured  out  the 
vials  of  his  wrath  on  "the  combination  of 
the  Puritan  and  the  black-leg."  It  was  a 
heavy  burden  for  the  new  administration, 
and  one  which  Adams,  with  all  his  ability 
and  statesmanship,  was  ill-fitted  to  bear. 
So  far  as  the  recommendations  of  his  mes 
sages  are  concerned,  their  breadth  of  view 
and  national  spirit  entitle  Adams  to  a 
place  in  the  front  rank  of  American  Presi 
dents;  but  a  prevailing  public  opinion 
classed  him  as  of  the  old  regime,  and  against 
the  on-coming  tide  of  Jacksonian  democracy 
he  was  powerless.  The  old  order  was 
changing,  giving  place  to  new. 


CHAPTER  III 

JACKSONIAN   DEMOCRACY 

1828-1837 

THE  presidential  campaign  of  1828  may 
be  said  to  have  begun  with  the  election  of 
Adams  by  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
1825.  The  new  party  lines  were  still  indis 
tinct,  and  national  nominating  conventions 
had  yet  to  be  evolved.  In  October,  1825, 
Jackson  was  nominated  by  the  legislature 
of  his  own  State,  Tennessee,  and  for  the 
next  two  years  similar  action  by  legislatures 
or  other  bodies  in  all  parts  of  the  country 
kept  the  ball  rolling.  The  friends  of  Craw 
ford  were  won  over  by  Martin  Van  Buren, 
who  early  in  1827  made  a  tour  of  the 
South  for  that  purpose.  The  action  of  Van 
Buren  was  especially  significant  because  it 
carried  with  it  the  support  of  the  "Albany 
regency,"  the  political  machine  which  since 
1820  had  become  increasingly  powerful  in 
New  York. 

Early  in  Adams's  administration  the 
followers  of  Clay  and  Adams  took  the  name 

44 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          45 

of  National  Republicans,  a  name  which 
they  were  later  to  exchange  for  that  of 
Whigs.  The  followers  of  Jackson,  united 
as  yet  by  a  common  opposition  to  the  admin 
istration  more  than  by  adherence  to  a  com 
mon  political  creed,  were  at  first  known 
simply  as  "Jackson  men,"  a  designation 
presently  supplanted  by  that  of  Democrats, 
under  which  name  the  party  has  since  had 
unbroken  existence.  A  third  party,  the  Anti- 
Masons,  sprang  up  in  New  York  in  1826-27, 
and  spread  with  such  rapidity  in  a  few  other 
States  as  to  threaten  for  a  time  to  become 
of  national  importance;  but  opposition  to 
freemasonry  proved  too  slight  a  basis  for 
permanent  influence,  and  in  a  few  years 
the  party  disappeared. 

It  was  less  a  campaign  of  parties  or  prin 
ciples  ,  however,  than  of  candidates .  Increased 
appropriations  for  internal  improvements, 
together  with  the  "tariff  of  abominations," 
did,  indeed,  draw  with  greater  sharpness 
the  line  between  loose  and  strict  construc- 
tionists;  but  the  strength  of  the  opposition 
lay,  not  in  constitutional  arguments,  but 
in  its  comprehensive  slogan  "Hurrah  for 
Jackson!"  The  electoral  vote  showed  178 
for  Jackson  against  83  for  Adams.  The 
popular  vote,  on  the  other  hand,  the  only 
true  gauge  of  public  opinion,  showed  no 
such  overwhelming  preponderance.  In  a 
total  vote  of  1,155,340,  Jackson  received 


46    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

647,276.  In  Maine,  New  York,  and  Mary 
land  the  electoral  vote  was  divided;  for  the 
rest,  the  South  and  West,  together  with 
Pennsylvania,  voted  solidly  for  Jackson. 

From  whatever  point  of  view  it  might  be 
regarded,  the  election  was  unquestionably 
a  triumph  for  "the  people,"  whose  candidate 
Jackson  preeminently  was.  It  remained 
to  be  seen  whether  "the  people"  could 
govern;  whether  the  constitutional  system 
of  the  United  States,  framed  at  a  time  when 
the  limitation  and  direction  of  the  popular 
will,  rather  than  its  unfettered  expression, 
were  deemed  essential  to  an  orderly  conduct 
of  affairs,  would  lend  itself  to  the  new  demand 
for  more  direct  initiative  and  control.  Would 
it  be  possible  for  a  President,  swept  into 
office  by  a  great  popular  wave  of  mingled 
enthusiasm  and  revolt,  to  maintain  respect 
for  the  Constitution,  the  laws,  and  the 
courts,  safeguard  the  rights  of  capital  and 
industry,  resist  encroachments  of  the  States 
upon  the  proper  sphere  of  federal  authority, 
enlist  in  the  service  of  the  government  those 
most  competent  for  the  task,  and  win  for 
the  country  increasing  respect  among  other 
nations,  and  at  the  same  time  retain  the 
cooperation  and  esteem  of  "the  people"? 
Would  the  American  democracy,  led  by  a 
frontier  soldier,  permit  government  to  be 
regarded  as  a  serious  business? 

In  one  direction,  at  least,  the  beginning 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          47 

was  not  hopeful.  Jackson  was  scarcely 
seated  in  the  presidential  chair  before  the 
looting  of  the  civil  service  began.  Under 
Washington  and  John  Adams  appointments 
to  office  had,  for  the  most  part,  fallen  natu 
rally  to  Federalists.  The  eight  years  of 
Jefferson's  administration  worked  a  pretty 
thorough  reconstitution  in  personnel,  but 
purely  partisan  removals  were  infrequent. 
Jackson,  accepting  without  reserve  the 
theory  of  "rotation  in  office,"  threw  open 
the  federal  civil  service  to  the  spoilsmen. 
By  December,  1829,  when  Congress  met, 
it  was  estimated  that  a  thousand  removals 
had  already  been  made.  Neither  age  nor 
faithfulness  nor  financial  need  availed  to 
retain  an  office  if  a  supporter  of  the  "old 
hero  "  wanted  it.  To  Jackson  the  widespread 
demoralization  of  the  federal  service  which 
ensued  seems  to  have  been  a  matter  of  in 
difference;  and  upon  him,  more  than  upon 
any  other  President,  must  be  placed  the 
responsibility  of  giving  to  the  spoils  system 
a  place  in  both  the  theory  and  the  practice 
of  American  government. 

With  something  akin  to  a  reign  of  terror 
inaugurated  among  the  executive  depart 
ments  at  Washington,  and  in  the  post- 
offices  and  customs  offices  throughout  the 
country,  Jackson  began  an  attack  upon 
the  BaQk~oL.the  United  States.  Although 
badly  mismanaged  in  its  early  years,  the 


48    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

bank  was  now,  under  the  presidency  of 
Nicholas  Biddle,  in  sound  and  prosperous 
condition.  From  the  first,  however,  a 
powerful  and  aggressive  opposition  to  the 
institution  had  shown  itself.  In  1819  the 
Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  McCulloch 
vs.  Maryland,  had  upheld  the  constitution 
ality  of  the  bank;  but  the  weight  of  Chief- 
Justice  Marshall's  decision  had  not  sufficed 
to  prevent  persistent  attempts,  in  many 
Southern  and  Western  States,  to  tax  the 
branches  of  the  bank  or  even  to  prevent 
their  operation  altogether.  As  the  greatest 
financial  monopoly  in  the  country,  and  one 
of  the  largest  at  the  time  in  the  world,  the 
opponents  of  the  bank  denounced  it  as  a 
menace  to  the  freedom  and  purity  of  elec 
tions;  while  the  State  banks,  jealous  of  its 
privilege  of  note  issue,  and  compelled  to 
conduct  their  own  business  on  equally  safe 
lines,  charged  the  Bank  of  the  United  States 
with  unfriendliness  to  local  interests  and 
with  catering  to  the  "money  power." 

At  the  end  of  his  first  annual  message, 
in  December,  1829,  Jackson  inserted  two 
short  paragraphs  in  which  he  declared  that 
"both  the  constitutionality  and  the  expe 
diency  of  the  law  creating  this  bank  are 
well  questioned  by  a  large  portion  of  our 
fellow-citizens,"  and  that  "the  great  end 
of  establishing  a  uniform  and  sound  cur 
rency"  had  admittedly  not  been  realized. 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          49 

The  same  charges,  somewhat  amplified, 
were  repeated  in  the  message  of  1830. 
Beyond  an  investigation  and  a  report  sus 
taining  the  bank,  Congress  paid  no  atten 
tion  to  either  message.  The  charter  of  the 
bank  did  not  expire  until  1836,  nearly  two 
years  and  a  half  after  the  term  for  which 
Jackson  had  been  elected.  The  bank  would 
doubtless  apply  for  a  renewal  of  its  privileges, 
but  for  the  consideration  of  that  question 
the  time  seemed  ample. 

In  a  brief  paragraph  in  his  annual  message 
of  1831,  Jackson  declared  that,  having 
"conscientiously  discharged  a  constitutional 
duty,"  he  deemed  it  proper  to  leave  the 
question  "for  the  present,"  without  further 
argument,  "to  the  investigation  of  an  en 
lightened  people  and  their  representatives." 
In  the  light  of  what  presently  took  place  the 
words  have  an  ominous  significance,  but 
they  were  generally  taken  as  indicative 
of  an  intention  to  drop  the  matter.  Biddle, 
the  president  of  the  bank,  rashly  chose  the 
moment  as  an  opportune  time  to  bring  the 
question  of  a  re-charter  before  Congress.  A 
bill  substantially  identical  with  the  existing 
law,  but  with  provision  for  a  bonus  of 
$3,000,000,  payable  in  fifteen  annual  install 
ments,  instead  of  the  original  bonus  of 
$1,500,000,  passed  Congress  in  July  by  small 
majorities. 

To  the  consternation  of  Biddle  and  his 


50    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

friends,  Jackson  vetoed  the  bill.  The  veto 
message  attacked  the  bank  as  a  monopoly, 
for  whose  exclusive  privileges  no  adequate 
return  was  made  to  either  the  people  or  the 
government,  and  as  a  menace  to  the  busi 
ness  of  the  country  and  to  politics.  In  a 
memorable  passage,  better  indicative,  per 
haps,  than  anything  he  ever  uttered  of  his 
attitude  towards  the  Constitution  and  the 
courts,  Jackson  brushed  aside  the  conten 
tion  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  settled  now  that 
the  Supreme  Court  had  affirmed  it;  and 
claimed  for  the  executive  an  unrestrained 
right,  independent  of  either  legislature  or 
judiciary,  to  judge  what  was  constitutional 
and  what  was  not.  The  majorities  in  Con 
gress  in  favor  of  the  bank  were  not  sufficient 
to  pass  the  bill  over  the  veto,  and  it  failed. 

In  vetoing  the  bank  bill  Jackson  had 
taken  the  bold  step  of  throwing  the  bank 
question  as  an  issue  into  the  presidential 
campaign  of  1832.  His  triumphant  reelec 
tion  in  November  was  interpreted  as  a 
vindication  of  his  course,  and  a  popular 
condemnation  of  the  financial  policy  which 
the  alliance  between  the  government  and 
the  bank  embodied. 

He  now  proceeded  to  complete  the  work 
of  separation.  Convinced,  both  by  the 
general  policy  of  the  bank  and  by  its  course 
immediately  following  the  veto,  that  the 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY         51 

institution  was  unsound,  he  called  upon  his 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  McLane,  in  May, 
1833,  to  remove  from  the  bank  and  its 
branches  the  federal  deposits.  When  Mc 
Lane  refused,  he  was  "kicked  upstairs" 
and  made  Secretary  of  State,  and  Duane 
appointed  in  his  place.  In  September 
Jackson  read  to  the  cabinet  an  elaborate 
statement  of  his  reasons  for  desiring  the 
removal  of  the  deposits,  and  pointed  out 
that  the  members  of  the  cabinet,  though  in 
no  way  bound  to  do  anything  which  they 
believed  to  be  illegal  or  which  their  con 
sciences  condemned,  were  nevertheless  bound, 
if  they  continued  in  office,  to  cooperate  with 
the  President  in  carrying  out  his  policy. 

Duane  was  opposed  to  the  bank;  but  since 
he  did  not  believe  the  bank  to  be  unsound, 
and  was  convinced  that  the  removal  of  the 
deposits  under  the  circumstances  would  be 
unlawful,  he  refused  to  issue  the  necessary 
orders  and  also  refused  to  resign.  He  was 
accordingly  dismissed.  His  successor,  Taney, 
later  chief -justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
the  principal  author  of  the  paper  read  to  the 
cabinet,  took  the  action  desired.  The  govern 
ment  moneys  were  withdrawn,  and  there 
after  deposits  were  made  in  selected  State 
banks  under  carefully  guarded  contracts. 

In  December  the  annual  message  of  the 
President,  and  the  accompanying  report  of 
Taney,  informed  Congress  of  the  steps  that 


52    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

had  been  taken;  but  a  copy  of  the  cabinet 
paper,  called  for  by  the  Senate,  was  refused, 
although  the  paper  had  already  been  pub 
lished.  After  a  debate  which  extended  over 
more  than  three  months,  the  Senate,  on 
March  28,  1834,  adopted  resolutions  con 
demning  Taney's  statement  of  reasons  as 
"unsatisfactory  and  insufficient,"  and  de 
claring  that  the  President,  "in  the  late 
executive  proceedings  in  relation  to  the 
public  revenue,  has  assumed  upon  himself 
authority  and  power  not  conferred  by  the 
Constitution  and  laws,  but  in  derogation  of 
both." 

Against  the  resolution  of  censure  Jackson, 
in  a  vigorous  message,  protested;  but  the 
Senate  by  formal  resolutions  charged  him 
with  further  usurpation  of  authority,  de 
nied  the  right  of  protest,  and  refused  to 
enter  the  message  upon  its  journal.  There 
upon  Thomas  H.  Benton  of  Missouri, 
Jackson's  leading  spokesman  in  the  Senate, 
announced  his  intention  "to  introduce,  at 
each  succeeding  session,  a  motion  to  expunge 
the  resolution  of  censure  from  the  journal 
until  the  desired  action  was  taken  or  his 
own  public  career  ended."  January  16, 
1837,  after  two  unsuccessful  attempts,  the 
victory  was  won.  The  manuscript  journal 
of  the  session  of  1833-34  was  brought  into 
the  Senate,  and  the  Secretary  drew  black 
lines  around  the  censuring  resolution  and 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          53 

wrote  across  its  face,  "in  strong  letters," 
the  triumphant  words,  "Expunged  by  order 
of  the  Senate,  this  sixteenth  day  of  January, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1837."  To  Benton 
it  was,  like  Cromwell's  destruction  of  the 
Scottish  army  at  Worcester,  "a  crowning 
mercy." 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
Jackson's  attack  upon  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  was  due  entirely  to  hostility 
to  that  institution  as  such.  Jackson's 
ideas  of  public  finance  were  hardly  more 
than  elementary.  His  hostility  was  directed 
against  banks  in  general,  rather  than  against 
any  particular  bank;  and  when,  to  a  bank 
as  representing  the  "money  power,"  there 
was  added  the  element  of  a  great  monopoly, 
the  argument  was,  in  his  judgment,  complete. 
That  his  method  was  aggressive  and  forcible 
to  the  point  of  brutality  does  not  weaken 
the  general  soundness  of  his  contentions; 
for  the  bank,  with  all  its  usefulness,  had 
unquestionably  become  a  menace. 

Jackson  could  hardly  have  challenged  the 
bank  with  confidence  in  1832  had  he  not, 
by  that  time,  become  the  absolute  master 
of  his  party.  His  first  cabinet  was  not  a 
strong  one;  and  in  1831  a  quixotic  attempt 
to  compel  the  ladies  of  the  cabinet  to  receive 
Mrs.  Eaton,  wife  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
regarding  whose  early  character  suspicions 
had  been  rife,  broke  it  up.  Van  Buren  by 


54    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

good  fortune  retained  Jackson's  regard,  and 
was  presently  nominated  minister  to  Eng 
land.  He  proceeded  to  his  post  in  Septem 
ber,  only  to  learn  in  February,  1832,  that 
the  Senate  had  rejected  his  nomination. 
The  rejection  helped  rather  than  injured 
his  political  prospects.  Jackson  had  al 
ready  determined  upon  Van  Buren  as  his 
political  heir,  and  the  program  was  now 
carried  through  with  relentless  energy.  In 
spite  of  bitter  hostility  to  Van  Buren  because 
of  his  political  methods,  the  Democratic 
national  convention  —  the  first  held  by  the 
party  —  was  compelled  to  accept  him  as  the 
candidate  for  Vice-President. 

Jackson  had  already  been  endorsed  by  so 
many  legislatures  and  other  bodies  that 
the  convention  of  1831  had  nothing  to  do  save 
to  concur  in  the  renominations.  The  election 
was  a  great  Democratic  victory.  Jackson 
received  219  electoral  votes  against  49  for 
Clay,  his  Whig  opponent.  The  popular 
vote  showed  687,502  and  530,189  for  the 
two  candidates  respectively. 

While  Van  Buren,  the  "little  magician," 
shone  brighter  and  brighter  in  the  reflected 
light  of  his  chief,  the  stars  in  their  courses 
seemed  to  conspire  against  Calhoun.  In 
1824,  and  again  in  1828,  he  had  given  way 
to  Jackson  and  accepted  the  office  of  Vice- 
President,  meantime  carrying  in  his  breast 
the  uneasy  memory  of  a  certain  cabinet 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          55 

meeting,  in  1818,  at  which  he  had  urged  that 
Jackson  be  court-martialed  for  his  invasion 
of  Florida.  When,  in  1830,  Jackson  learned 
of  that  episode,  friendly  relations  between 
the  two  men  were  at  an  end;  while  the  popu 
lar  demand  for  the  reelection  of  Jackson 
forced  Calhoun  not  only  to  give  up  the 
vice-presidency,  which  he  could  not  hope 
to  hold  for  a  third  term  even  if  he  wished, 
but  also  to  face  the  loss  of  the  presidency. 

Close  on  the  heels  of  the  election  came  the 
nullification  outburst  in  South  Carolina. 
The  tariff  act  of  July  14,  1832,  did  indeed 
temper  some  of  the  excesses  of  the  "black 
tariff"  of  1828,  but  at  the  same  time  showed 
no  abandonment  of  protection  as  a  prin 
ciple.  A  divided  vote  in  New  England  and 
the  South  was  more  than  offset  by  solid 
support  in  the  Middle,  Western,  and  South 
western  States.  Six  weeks  later  Calhoun, 
now  thoroughly  converted  to  the  strict  con 
struction  view  of  the  Constitution,  set  forth, 
in  an  elaborate  letter  to  Governor  Hamilton 
of  South  Carolina,  "the  final  and  classical 
exposition  of  the  theory  of  State!sovereignty." 
On  the  22d  of  October  the  Legislature  of 
South  Carolina  met  in  extra  session,  and 
four  days  later  called  a  convention  to  nullify 
the  tariff  laws. 

The  convention  met  November  19,  and 
on  the  24th  issued  the  famous  Ordinance  of 
Nullification.  In  the  name  of  the  people 


56    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

of  the  State,  the  ordinance  declared  the 
tariff  acts  of  1828  and  1832  to  be  unauthor 
ized  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  "null, 
void,  and  no  law";  forbade  the  collection 
of  the  duties  within  the  State;  and  threat 
ened  secession  in  case  the  United  States 
should  in  any  manner  attempt  coercion. 
An  oath  to  support  the  ordinance  was  pre 
scribed  for  all  State  officers,  civil  and 
military. 

Jackson  had  not  been  an  indifferent 
spectator  of  these  extraordinary  proceed 
ings.  Friends  kept  him  fully  informed  of 
what  was  going  on,  and  the  army  and  navy 
were  in  readiness.  His  annual  message  of 
December  4  made  only  brief  allusion  to 
what  had  transpired.  Six  days  later,  how 
ever,  he  issued  a  proclamation  that  fell 
with  stunning  effect  upon  the  ears  of  the 
nullifiers.  With  elaborate  and  cogent  argu 
ment,  and  in  a  vigorous  tone  not  to  be  mis 
understood,  he  denounced  the  doctrine  of 
nullification  as  "incompatible  with  the  exis 
tence  of  the  Union,  contradicted  expressly 
by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  unauthor 
ized  by  its  spirit,  inconsistent  with  every 
principle  on  which  it  was  founded,  and 
destructive  of  the  great  object  for  which  it 
was  formed."  The  nullifiers  had  appar 
ently  assumed  that  Jackson's  lukewarmness 
towards  protection  would  lead  him  to  acqui 
esce  in  an  attack  upon  the  Constitution  and 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          57 

the  authority  of  the  federal  government; 
but  they  had  reckoned  without  their  host. 

Governor  Hayne  issued  a  counter-proc 
lamation,  and  the  adjutant-general  of 
South  Carolina  called  for  volunteers.  In 
January,  1833,  Jackson  sent  to  Congress  a 
special  message,  and  asked  for  the  legisla 
tion  necessary  to  enforce  the  revenue  laws. 
Fortunately,  perhaps,  for  both  parties,  the 
forces  of  compromise  were  already  at  work. 
A  bill  to  reduce  the  tariff,  introduced  in  the 
House  December  27,  made  progress  in  spite 
of  protectionist  opposition;  a  "force  bill" 
providing  for  the  collection  of  duties  appeared 
in  the  Senate;  resolutions  of  State  legis 
latures  condemned  nullification  and  upheld 
Jackson;  and  Virginia  offered  friendly  medi 
ation.  On  the  21st  of  January  a  public 
meeting  at  Charleston  assumed  to  suspend 
the  ordinance  for  the  time  being,  and  in 
February  the  convention  was  reconvened 
for  March  11. 

Before  the  expiration  of  the  session, 
March  4,  Congress  had  held  out  both  the 
olive  branch  and  the  sword.  A  compromise 
tariff,  mainly  the  work  of  Clay,  provided 
for  a  gradual  reduction  of  duties  during  the 
ensuing  nine  years  until  a  twenty  per  cent 
level  was  reached.  If  Clay's  course  as  the 
leading  champion  of  protection  was  incon 
sistent,  it  at  least  prevented  a  rupture,  and 
perhaps  saved  the  protective  system  from 


58    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

destruction  then  and  there.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  act  for  enforcing  the  tariff  gave 
the  President  ample  and  much  needed  powers 
for  the  forcible  collection  of  duties  when 
necessary.  The  South  Carolina  convention 
adopted  an  ordinance  nullifying  the  "force 
bill,"  but  repealed  the  former  ordinance  of 
nullification.  Calhoun,  meantime,  had  re 
signed  the  untenable  office  of  Vice-President 
and  been  elected  United  States  senator. 

Apparently  the  greater  victory  rested 
with  South  Carolina.  The  theory  of  nulli 
fication  had,  indeed,  been  condemned,  and 
the  authority  of  the  federal  government  in 
the  collection  of  customs  duties  asserted. 
But  the  protective  tariff  had  been  radically 
modified,  and  it  was  against  protection  that 
South  Carolina  had  taken  its  stand.  The 
nullification  episode  checked  for  the  moment 
the  growth  of  nationalism,  emphasized  sec 
tional  divergence,  and  once  more  made 
State  rights  and  strict  construction  a  prac 
tical  political  dogma. 

Jackson  had  little  regard  for  consistency. 
In  the  same  year  in  which  he  read  a  lesson  in 
constitutional  law  to  South  Carolina,  he 
allowed  Georgia  to  defy  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  and  seize  the  rich 
lands  of  the  Cherokee  Indians,  over  which 
Chief -Justice  Marshall,  in  an  elaborate  decis 
ion,  had  held  that  the  State  had  no  juris 
diction.  Jackson  disliked  Marshall  and 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          59 

was  not  unwilling  to  see  him  humiliated; 
and  he  was  doubtless  influenced  also  by 
his  belief  that  the  Indians,  though  entitled 
to  humane  and  just  treatment,  must  not 
be  allowed  to  impede  the  progress  of  civili 
zation  by  stubborn  refusal  to  sell  their  lands. 

The  same  inconsistency  appeared  in  the 
treatment  of  diplomatic  questions,  albeit 
that  in  two  important  controversies  the 
record  was  one  of  success.  In  1830  the 
lucrative  trade  with  the  British  West  Indies, 
from  which  Americans  had  been  excluded 
by  the  English  navigation  acts  ever  since 
1783,  was  opened  on  favorable  terms.  In 
1836  France  was  compelled  to  provide  for 
the  payment  of  claims  which  dated  back 
to  1800.  Similar  claims  against  Spain, 
Denmark,  and  the  Two  Sicilies  were  also 
adjusted.  On  the  other  hand,  the  United 
States  flagrantly  ignored  its  obligations  as 
a  neutral  in  the  war  between  Mexico  and 
Texas,  although  Jackson  urged  caution  in 
the  recognition  by  Congress  of  Texan  inde 
pendence. 

In  one  direction  only  did  Jackson  unwit 
tingly  prepare  calamity  for  his  successor. 
Contrary  to  the  prediction  of  friends  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  the  removal  of 
the  deposits  was  not  at  once  followed  by 
financial  disorder.  The  "pet  banks,"  while 
using  the  government  deposits  as  security 
for  note  issues,  were  cautious.  Various 


60    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

causes,  however,  operated  to  bring  on  the 
familiar  characteristics  of  a  speculative 
period.  The  national  debt  was  practically 
extinguished  in  1835,  and  the  compromise 
tariff,  which  could  not  be  disturbed,  began 
to  produce  a  surplus.  Capital  was  abundant 
in  both  the  United  States  and  Europe, 
canals  facilitated  the  expansion  of  commerce, 
and  the  era  of  railroad  building  had  begun. 
Even  the  States  were  incited  to  extrava 
gance  by  an  act  of  June  23,  1836,  under 
which,  in  connection  with  the  regulation 
of  the  deposits,  provision  was  made  for 
distributing  the  surplus  revenue  among  the 
States. 

The  most  striking  illustration  of  the  spread 
of  the  speculative  fever  appeared  in  the 
sales  of  public  lands  in  the  West.  Receipts 
from  lands  rose  from  $4,857,000  in  1834  to 
$24,877,000  in  1836.  Although  by  law 
payments  for  lands  could  be  made  only  in 
gold  or  silver  (the  latter  not  then  in  active 
circulation),  or  in  notes  of  specie-paying 
banks,  the  extraordinary  expansion  of  credit 
in  the  West,  with  the  consequent  increased 
demand  for  paper  money,  caused  a  large 
part  of  the  payments  to  be  in  fact  made  in 
State  bank  notes,  the  specie  value  of  which 
was  uncertain.  In  June,  1836,  the  deposit 
banks,  with  gross  liabilities,  including  capi 
tal  and  circulation,  of  $144,600,000,  held 
only  $10,400,000  in  specie. 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY          61 

When,  therefore,  the  specie  circular  of 
July  11  directed  the  receipt,  after  August 
15,  in  payment  for  lands,  of  nothing  save 
gold  or  silver,  or,  in  certain  cases,  unim 
portant  Virginia  land  scrip,  a  wholesale 
curtailment  of  loans  became  necessary.  To 
this  was  added  the  necessity  of  providing 
specie  to  the  amount  of  the  surplus  revenue, 
the  distribution  of  which  began  in  January, 
1837.  The  outcome  of  the  disorder,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  climax  of  speculation 
and  the  disastrous  failure  of  crops  in  1835 
and  1837,  was  the  severe  financial  panic 
which  befell  the  country  in  the  spring  of  the 
latter  year. 

Jackson,  having  dictated  the  choice  of 
Van  Buren  for  Vice-President  in  1832,  had 
early  determined  to  elevate  him  to  the 
presidency  in  1836.  The  opposition,  which 
since  1834  had  taken  the  name  of  Whigs, 
was  as  yet  loosely  knit,  and  in  the  face  of 
Jackson's  aggressive  course  could  do  little 
more  than  denounce  the  "usurpation"  of 
the  executive.  The  continued  hostility  to 
Van  Buren  within  the  Democratic  ranks, 
on  the  other  hand,  made  it  wise  to  insure 
an  early  nomination.  In  May,  1835,  a 
subservient  convention  at  Baltimore  unani 
mously  nominated  him  for  President,  with 
Richard  M.  Johnson  of  Kentucky  as  his 
associate  on  the  ticket. 

The  Whigs,  by  nominating  strong  local 


62    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

candidates,  sought  to  throw  the  election 
into  the  House  of  Representatives.  The 
Pennsylvania  Whigs  supported  William 
Henry  Harrison  of  Ohio,  also  the  nominee 
of  the  Anti-Masons;  Ohio  supported  Judge 
John  McLean;  Massachusetts  nominated 
Webster.  But  the  Democrats,  superior  alike 
in  organization  and  in  popular  strength, 
carried  the  day.  The  popular  majority  for 
Van  Buren  was  small,  but  the  electoral 
vote  stood  170  for  Van  Buren  and  73  for 
Harrison,  the  nearest  competitor.  There 
was  no  choice  for  Vice-President  by  the 
electors,  and  the  Senate,  exercising  its  con 
stitutional  function  in  such  a  case  for  the 
only  time  thus  far  in  our  history,  chose 
Johnson. 

Jackson  issued  a  farewell  address,  and 
at  the  close  of  his  term  retired,  a  triumphant 
popular  hero,  to  his  home  at  the  "Hermit 
age,"  near  Nashville,  where  he  died  in 
1845.  He  had  saved  the  presidential  office 
from  threatened  eclipse  by  Congress,  up 
held  the  authority  of  the  Union,  waged 
successful  war  against  privilege  and  monop 
oly,  vitalized  a  national  party,  and  brought 
"the  people"  into  their  own.  Twenty- 
four  years  were  to  pass  before  the  presiden 
tial  chair  was  filled  by  a  man  at  all  com 
parable  to  him  in  native  ability,  political 
wisdom,  or  sure  popular  hold. 


CHAPTER  IV 

SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION 

1815-1840 

WHILE  the  new  democracy,  under  the 
leadership  of  Jackson,  was  destroying  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  shaking  the  hold 
of  the  old  political  aristocracy,  and  forcing 
a  reorganization  of  parties  and  a  restate 
ment  of  party  creeds,  there  was  arising  in 
the  North  a  new  and  formidable  demand  for 
the  abolition  of  slavery. 

The  institution  of  negro  slavery  had  under 
gone  in  the  United  States  a  long  and  some 
what  varied  development.  Beginning  in 
1619  with  the  landing  of  a  few  negroes  in 
Virginia,  it  grew  but  slowly  during  the 
colonial  period,  save  in  South  Carolina. 
Throughout  most  of  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury  it  was  closely  rivaled  by  the  system  of 
indentured  white  servitude.  In  the  first 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  was  sus 
tained  less  by  settled  conviction  of  its  inhe 
rent  goodness  or  economic  profitableness 
than  by  a  steady  stream  of  fresh  impor 
tations  directly  encouraged  by  the  English 

63 


64    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

crown.  In  1774  the  first  Continental  Con 
gress  declared  against  further  importations, 
not  so  much  because  of  moral  opposition  to 
the  trade  as  because  prohibition  would  be 
a  serious  blow  at  the  mother  country. 

In  the  meantime  natural  conditions  of 
soil  and  climate  had  operated  to  confine 
slavery  mainly  to  the  South,  where  the 
production  of  tobacco,  cotton,  and  rice  as 
staples  constituted  almost  the  sole  interest 
of  agriculture,  and  where  malaria  and  sum 
mer  heat  made  it  difficult  for  whites  to  labor 
in  the  field.  By  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Federal  Constitution,  in  1787,  negro 
slavery  had  long  since  ceased  to  be  of  much 
importance  in  the  North,  and  had  either 
been  abolished  by  State  constitutions  or 
laws,  or  was  in  process  of  complete  extinc 
tion  by  various  methods  of  gradual  emanci 
pation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  growing 
profitableness  of  slave  labor  in  the  South, 
with  the  consequent  increase  in  the  number 
of  slaves,  strengthened  the  demand  for 
the  preservation  of  the  system;  and  the 
Federal  Convention  of  1787,  in  framing  the 
Constitution,  was  forced  to  accept  compro 
mises  by  which  three-fifths  of  the  slaves 
were  to  be  counted,  in  addition  to  whites, 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  member 
ship  of  the  House  of  Representatives; 
while  the  slave  trade  was  shielded  from 
national  interference  for  twenty  years. 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         65 

From  time  to  time  organized  moral  op 
position  to  slavery,  coupled  with  demands 
for  abolition,  appeared  in  the  North,  and 
awakened  sympathetic  interest  in  the  South, 
especially  in  Virginia.  A  vigorous  agitation 
of  the  question  in  Massachusetts  was  checked 
by  the  coming  on  of  the  Revolutionary 
struggle.  In  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 
abolition  was  persistently  urged  by  numerous 
societies,  in  whose  work  the  Quakers  were 
particularly  active.  In  1790  there  came 
before  Congress  memorials  from  abolition 
societies  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  of 
the  latter  of  which  Benjamin  Franklin  was 
president,  praying  for  the  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade.  In  replying  to  the  petitions 
Congress  laid  down  the  principles  by  which 
it  was  to  be  governed  for  the  next  seventy 
years:  declaring  by  resolution  that  the 
slave  trade  could  not  be  interfered  with 
until  1808,  although  humane  conditions 
during  the  ocean  passage  could  be  enforced; 
and  that  the  treatment  of  slaves  in  this 
country,  together  with  their  emancipation, 
were  matters  solely  for  State  control. 

With  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin, 
in  1793,  it  became  for  the  first  time  possible 
to  put  American  cotton  on  the  market  in 
large  quantities.  A  slave  could  now  "gin," 
or  clean  of  seed  and  chaff,  some  hundreds  of 
pounds  of  cotton  in  a  day;  and  the  pro 
duction  of  cotton  grew  apace.  Before  the 


66    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

War  of  1812  population  from  Virginia,  the 
Carolinas,  and  Georgia  had  overflowed  into 
the  rich  "cotton  belt"  of  Alabama  and  Mis 
sissippi;  while  the  wasteful  methods  of 
slave  labor,  and  the  unprogressive  state  of 
Southern  agriculture  as  a  whole,  increased 
the  demand  for  fresh  cultivable  land.  Not 
all  the  slaveholding  States,  indeed,  were 
adapted  to  cotton  culture.  Virginia  and 
Maryland  still  relied  mainly  upon  tobacco, 
and  Kentucky  was  growing  hemp.  The 
increased  demand  for  labor  in  the  lower 
South,  however,  opened  a  market  for  the 
surplus  slaves  of  the  Border  States,  and 
that  section  accordingly  joined  with  the 
North  in  prohibiting  the  foreign  slave  trade 
after  January  1,  1808.  The  act  was  not 
genuinely  enforced,  nor  did  importations 
cease  when,  in  1820,  the  slave  trade  was 
declared  piracy. 

Even  in  the  South,  however,  opposition 
to  slavery  did  not  die.  In  1816  there  was 
formed  the  American  Colonization  Society, 
having  for  its  object  the  deportation  to 
Africa  of  such  emancipated  negroes  as  were 
willing  to  go.  For  a  number  of  years  the 
society  enjoyed  much  favor.  Madison  and 
Clay  were  numbered  among  its  presidents, 
slaveholders  subscribed  to  its  funds,  and 
a  few  States  made  grants  in  aid.  The 
existence  of  the  society  testified  to  an 
uneasy  feeling  that  slavery  was  indefensible, 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         67 

and  that  the  presence  of  free  negroes  in  a  slave 
region  was  a  menace  to  the  institution. 
The  society  never  accomplished  any  impor 
tant  results,  however,  since  the  imported 
slaves  far  outnumbered  those  who  were  colo 
nized.  At  best,  its  work  was  hardly  more 
than  a  feeble  apology  for  slavery. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  brought  fop 
the  first  time  to  national  expression  the 
feeling  of  apprehension  with  which  the  con 
tinued  growth  of  slavery  was  regarded. 
Only  indirectly,  indeed,  was  the  legislation 
of  1820  a  declaration  of  hostility  to  slavery 
as  such,  for  the  reason  that  the  compromise 
did  not  concern  itself  with  the  status  of 
slavery  in  any  State  in  which  it  had  hitherto 
existed.  But  by  the  exclusion  of  slavery 
from  the  Louisiana  purchase  north  of  36° 
30 ',  Congress  registered  the  decision  of  a 
majority  of  the  people  that  the  slavehold- 
ing  area  should  be  restricted,  and  that  the 
larger  part  of  the  national  domain  should 
forever  remain  free.  The  compromise  thus 
stamped  slavery  as  a  "peculiar  institu 
tion,"  put  it  on  the  defensive,  and  limited  the 
field  of  its  development. 

The  period  from  1816  to  1832  marks  also 
a  change  in  the  attitude  of  the  South  on  the 
question.  So  long  as  a  protectivejtariff  could 
be  conceived  of  as  diffusing  its  benefits 
throughout  the  country,  whether  a  parti 
cular  section  or  industry  were  directly 


68    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

aided  or  not,  the  South  faced  with  satis 
faction  the  coming  of  an  increased  pros 
perity  and  a  new  industrialism.  But  when 
the  tariffs  of  1824  and  1828,  though  multi 
plying  factories  in  the  North,  brought  to 
the  South  no  enhanced  price  of  cotton  com 
mensurate  with  the  enhanced  prices  of 
manufactured  goods,  the  South  rapidly  cut 
loose  from  protection  as  unconstitutional 
and  visionary,  and  fell  back  upon  agricul 
ture  as  the  industry  for  which  nature  had 
fitted  it.  To  devotion  to  cotton  was  thus 
joined  advocacy  of  slavery;  while  the  fact 
that  the  opposition  to  protection  was  almost 
entirely  confined  to  the  South  added  to  the 
strength  of  the  economic  and  political  argu 
ment  the  weight  of  geographical  unity. 

After  1820,  too,  the  opposition  of  the 
North  declined.  Southern  planters  sent 
their  sons  to  Northern  colleges,  contributed 
to  Northern  churches  and  missionary  soci 
eties,  and  spent  money  freely  at  Northern 
summer  resorts.  Throughout  the  North 
slavery  had  by  this  time  disappeared,  and 
free  negroes  were  few.  Antislavery  soci 
eties  ceased  to  be  active,  and  the  churches 
became  silent.  In  New  England  the  popu 
lation,  drawn  on  the  one  hand  to  the  towns 
and  cities  by  the  growth  of  the  factory 
system,  and  on  the  other  to  the  West  by  the 
abundance  of  cheap  land,  was  rapidly 
changing  in  character  and  distribution.  A 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION          69 

new  literature  was  arising,  new  intellectual 
interests  were  developing,  and  new  social 
problems  pressed  for  solution. 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  that 
William  Lloyd  Garrison  launched  his  abo 
lition  crusade. 

Garrison  was  born  in  Newburyport,  Massa 
chusetts,  in  1805.  He  became  a  printer, 
and  in  1829  entered  the  employ  of  Benjamin 
Lundy,  a  Quaker,  at  Baltimore,  who  had 
been  publishing  since  1821  an  antislavery 
paper  called  the  "Genius  of  Universal 
Emancipation."  In  the  absence  of  Lundy, 
Garrison  blew  a  blast  against  slavery  which 
roused  the  city  against  him,  and  presently 
forced  his  withdrawal.  Returning  to  Boston, 
he  issued  in  January,  1831,  the  first  number 
of  the  Liberator.  In  bold  and  uncompro 
mising  language  he  proclaimed  his  opposition 
to  slavery  in  every  form,  and  his  purpose 
to  agitate  unceasingly  for  its  abolition. 
**I  will  be  as  harsh  as  truth  and  as  uncom 
promising  as  justice.  ...  I  am  in  earnest — 
I  will  not  equivocate  —  I  will  not  excuse 
—  I  will  not  retreat  a  single  inch  —  and  I 
will  be  heard'9 

In  1832  the  New  England  Antislavery 
Society  was  formed,  followed  in  1833  by 
the  American  Antislavery  Society.  The 
constitution  of  the  latter  society,  while 
admitting  the  right  of  each  State  in  which 
slavery  existed  to  determine  whether  or  not 


70    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

it  should  be  abolished,  nevertheless  de 
nounced  slaveholding  as  "a  heinous  crime 
in  the  sight  of  God,"  demanded  its  "im 
mediate  abandonment  without  expatria 
tion,"  and  declared  against  the  domestic 
slave  trade.  As  to  the  negroes  themselves, 
the  constitution  framed  this  memorable 
platform:  "This  Society  shall  aim  to  elevate 
the  character  and  condition  of  the  people 
of  color,  by  encouraging  their  intellectual, 
moral,  and  religious  improvement,  and  by 
removing  public  prejudice,  that  thus  they 
may,  according  to  their  intellectual  and 
moral  worth,  share  an  equality  with  the 
whites  of  civil  and  religious  privileges;  but 
this  Society  will  never,  in  any  way,  coun 
tenance  the  oppressed  in  vindicating  their 
rights  by  resorting  to  physical  force." 

Before  long  the  aggressive  vigor  of  the 
Abolitionists,  energized  and  directed  by 
Garrison  and  his  Liberator,  brought  the 
inevitable  persecution.  A  school  for  young 
ladies  at  Canterbury,  Connecticut,  kept  by 
Miss  Prudence  Crandall,  a  Quakeress,  was 
broken  up  by  the  townspeople  because  Miss 
Crandall  admitted  a  colored  pupil.  The 
citizens  of  Canaan,  New  Hampshire,  voted 
that  the  academy  in  that  town  should  be 
"removed"  for  similar  reason;  and  ropes 
and  oxen  carried  the  vote  into  effect.  In 
October,  1835,  a  gentlemanly  mob  in  Boston 
dragged  Garrison  through  the  streets  with  a 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         71 

halter  about  his  neck,  tearing  his  clothes  and 
insulting  him,  until  the  mayor  had  him 
rescued  and  lodged  in  jail  for  safekeeping. 
In  December,  1837,  a  mob  at  Alton  mur 
dered  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy,  the  editor  of  an 
abolition  paper,  and  destroyed  his  press 
and  threw  the  fragments  into  the  river. 
When,  a  few  days  later,  at  a  great  meeting 
in  Faneuil  Hall,  Boston,  the  attorney- 
general  of  the  Commonwealth  apologized 
for  the  mob,  Wendell  Phillips,  then  a  young 
man  of  twenty-six,  turned  upon  him  with 
the  eloquent  but  withering  reply:  "Sir,  for 
the  sentiments  he  has  uttered,  on  soil  con 
secrated  by  the  prayers  of  Puritans  and 
the  blood  of  patriots,  the  earth  should  have 
yawned  and  swallowed  him  up."  Abolition 
had  found  its  orator. 

Comprising,  as  they  did  for  some  years, 
mainly  radical  reformers,  and  drawing  in 
their  train  enthusiasts  and  visionaries  of 
many  stripes,  it  was  inevitable  that  the 
Abolitionists  should  have  to  meet  all  sorts 
of  false  or  ignorant  accusations.  A  formida 
ble  slave  insurrection  in  Virginia,  under 
Nat  Turner,  in  1831,  was  ascribed  to  their 
influence.  They  were  charged  with  favoring 
the  amalgamation  of  the  races:  a  thing 
which  Southern  spokesmen  affected  to  regard 
as  unspeakably  odious,  notwithstanding  that 
the  increase  of  the  mulatto  population,  the 
result  of  illicit  unions,  was  notorious  through- 


72    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

out  the  South.  The  charge  that  slavery 
was  being  attacked  by  unconstitutional 
means  Garrison  persistently  denied,  and 
with  at  least  a  semblance  of  justification. 
In  his  view  the  Constitution  could  not  right 
fully  uphold  the  nation  in  sin;  and  if  slavery 
was  constitutional,  then  the  Constitution 
was  not  so  much  to  be  violated  as  to  be 
ignored. 

What  caused  the  greatest  irritation  in 
the  South,  however,  was  the  circulation  of 
abolition  literature  in  that  region  by  mail. 
The  matter  was  a  difficult  one  to  deal  with 
in  a  federal  government,  and  the  consti 
tutional  guarantee  of  freedom  of  the  press 
was  one  not  lightly  to  be  invaded.  In  July, 
1835,  the  mails  were  rifled  at  Charleston 
and  a  quantity  of  alleged  abolition  literature 
was  destroyed.  When  the  postmaster  at 
New  York  applied  to  the  Postmaster-General, 
Amos  Kendall,  for  instructions,  he  was 
informed  that  while  he  could  not  lawfully 
refuse  to  receive  abolition  mail,  he  was  not 
bound  to  forward  it.  In  his  annual  message 
of  December,  1835,  Jackson  urged  upon 
Congress  the  exclusion  from  the  mails  of 
publications  tending  to  incite  slave  insur 
rections,  and  Calhoun  did  his  best  to  attach 
a  detention  proviso  to  the  postoffice  appro 
priation  bill;  but,  fortunately  for  the  good 
name  of  the  United  States,  his  efforts  failed. 

In  addition  to  organizing  abolition  soci- 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         73 

eties  throughout  the  North,  holding  innu 
merable  public  meetings,  and  issuing  news 
papers  and  pamphlets,  the  Abolitionists 
early  began  systematically  to  petition  Con 
gress.  With  regard  to  the  domestic  and  for 
eign  slave  trade  and  the  status  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia, 
the  power  of  Congress  was  complete;  and 
before  long  a  stream  of  memorials  on  these 
subjects,  as  well  as  on  the  general  question 
of  slavery,  began  to  pour  into  the  House  of 
Representatives.  John  Quincy  Adams,  who 
in  1831  had  been  elected  a  member  of  the 
House,  championed  the  right  of  the  peti 
tioners  to  have  the  memorials  received  and 
read. 

The  temper  of  the  Southern  members 
passed  rapidly  from  irritation  to  anger. 
In  the  session  of  1835-36  a  great  attack 
upon  slavery  by  William  Slade  of  Vermont, 
together  with  the  demand  by  Adams  that 
the  petitions  be  not  only  received  and  read, 
but  referred  to  a  committee  for  consideration, 
threw  the  House  into  turmoil.  The  excite 
ment  was  temporarily  laid  by  the  adoption, 
in  May,  1836,  of  a  resolution  submitted  by 
Pinckney  of  South  Carolina,  directing  that 
all  petitions  and  other  papers  relating  in  any 
way  to  slavery  "shall,  without  being  printed 
or  referred,  be  laid  upon  the  table,  and  that 
no  further  action  whatever  shall  be  had 
thereon."  In  February,  1837,  Adams  pre- 


74    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

sented  a  petition  signed  by  some  twenty 
slaves,  and  again  threw  the  House  into  a 
panic  by  inquiring  whether  the  petition 
came  under  the  rule.  When,  after  angry 
discussion,  he  announced  that  the  petition 
was  against  abolition,  not  in  favor  of  it,  an 
attempt  was  made  to  censure  him  for  out 
raging  the  dignity  of  the  House;  but  the 
question  was  finally  disposed  of  by  a  resolu 
tion  declaring  that  slaves  did  not  possess 
the  right  of  petition. 

The  adoption  of  a  "gag  rule"  served  only 
to  swell  the  number  of  antislavery  petitions, 
and  to  call  out  from  New  England  legis 
latures  protests  against  the  rule  as  uncon 
stitutional.  The  majority  in  the  House  was 
not  disposed  to  stop,  however,  and  in  1840 
took  the  final  step  of  refusing  to  receive  any 
more  petitions  against  slavery,  or  to  enter 
tain  them  "in  any  way  whatever."  The 
essence  of  the  right  of  petition  is  the  right 
to  have  the  petition  read.  If  that  be  denied 
the  right  becomes  only  an  empty  form.  The 
House  of  Representatives  had  now  violated 
that  right.  What  counted  quite  as  much, 
moreover,  in  the  public  mind  was  the  fact 
that  the  open  denial  of  a  constitutional 
guarantee  was  made  on  behalf  of  slavery. 

An  eminent  constitutional  authority  1  has 
affirmed  that  "it  would  not  be  extravagant 
to  say  that  the  whole  course  of  the  inter- 

1  Burgess,  The  Middle  Period,  274. 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         75 

nal  history  of  the  United  States  from  1836 
to  1861  was  more  largely  determined  by  the 
struggle  in  Congress  over  the  abolition  peti 
tions  and  the  use  of  the  mails  for  the  distri 
bution  of  the  abolition  literature  than  by 
anything  else."  It  made  abolition  a  polit 
ical  issue  and  prepared  the  way  for  the  for 
mation  of  an  antislavery  party.  It  revealed 
to  the  nation  the  growth  of  sectionalism, 
notwithstanding  the  sweeping  progress  of 
Jacksonian  democracy;  and  forced  the 
South  to  fight  for  the  continuance  of  equal 
representation  of  the  sections  in  the  Senate, 
upon  which  the  maintenance  of  slavery 
depended.  On  the  other  hand,  it  doubtless 
increased  in  the  South  the  fear  of  slave 
insurrection,  and  led  to  more  rigorous 
treatment  of  the  negroes;  but  it  was  clear 
that  increased  severity,  once  the  fact  were 
generally  appreciated,  would  carry  its  own 
condemnation. 

In  contrast  to  the  situation  in  later  years, 
abolition  at  first  was  not  a  question  on  which 
public  men  hesitated  to  take  sides.  Jackson 
was  not,  apparently,  much  concerned  about 
the  subject,  but  he  condemned  the  circu 
lation  of  abolition  literature  in  slave  States, 
and  in  his  farewell  address  pointed  with 
gloomy  foreboding  to  the  danger  of  continu 
ing  the  agitation.  Clay  and  Calhoun  were 
outspoken  in  opposition  —  the  latter  bitterly 
and  aggressively  so,  the  former  more  because 


76    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

colonization  and  compromise  appeared  to  be 
the  better  solution.  Webster,  alone  among 
the  great  men  of  the  time,  avoided  the  issue 
whenever  possible,  especially  during  the 
years  in  which  presidential  ambitions  in 
creasingly  influenced  him;  but  at  least  he 
could  hardly  be  reckoned  a  supporter  of 
slavery. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Abolitionists 
failed  to  attract  a  large  following.  With 
some  notable  exceptions,  their  leaders  and 
active  supporters  were  radical  reformers, 
zealous  for  righteousness  but  without  politi 
cal  prominence.  Many  who  sympathized 
with  abolition  as  an  ultimate  result,  and  who 
were  willing  to  go  a  long  way  to  bring  it 
about,  were  repelled  by  the  strenuous  meth 
ods  and  extreme  utterances  of  Garrison  and 
his  followers.  It  was  the  work  of  the  Abo 
litionists,  rather,  to  sow  the  seed  of  moral 
and  political  regeneration  whose  harvest 
others  were  to  reap,  and  to  inaugurate  a 
movement  which  others  were  to  systematize 
and  direct.  Politically  they  saved  others, 
but  themselves  they  could  not  save. 

As  a  party,  the  Abolitionists  never  at 
tained  national  importance.  The  national 
convention  system  which  developed  after 
1830,  with  its  delegates,  its  platforms,  and 
its  official  nomination  of  candidates,  was 
favorable  to  the  formation  of  new  parties; 
but  those  who  bore  the  abolition  name  were 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         77 

too  few  to  derive  much  profit  from  it.  In 
1839  a  Liberty  party  nominated  James  G. 
Birney  of  New  York,  a  former  slaveholder 
but  later  an  abolition  leader,  for  the  presi 
dency;  but  only  7000  votes  were  polled  in  a 
total  of  over  2,400,000.  The  Democratic 
platform  in  1840  denounced  abolition  as  a 
movement  which  "ought  not  to  be  counte 
nanced  by  any  friend  to  our  political 
institutions."  In  1843  the  Liberty  party 
again  nominated  Birney,  and  adopted  a 
platform  which,  in  addition  to  its  denun 
ciation  of  slavery,  sought  to  identify  the 
party  with  the  principles  of  human  brother 
hood,  "pure  Christianity,"  and  "the  true 
spirit  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States."  The  Democrats  and  Whigs,  en 
tangled  with  the  question  of  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  avoided  the  slavery  issue  alto 
gether  in  their  platforms  of  that  year;  but 
although  the  popular  vote  for  Birney  rose 
to  62,000,  that  number  was  not  sufficient 
to  secure  any  electoral  votes.  Thereafter 
the  Abolitionists  as  such  cast  no  separately 
recorded  vote  in  presidential  elections. 

Radical  and  outspoken  as  it  was  in  its 
methods,  involved  almost  from  the  first 
in  controversies  with  the  government  and 
the  established  social  order,  and  unsuited 
for  organized  political  action,  the  cause  of 
abolition  was  nevertheless  greatly  helped 
by  the  general  reforming  spirit  of  the  time. 


78    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

In  New  England  the  Unitarian  movement, 
breaking  with  the  dominant  theology  of 
Congregationalism,  made  its  wray  rapidly 
after  1815,  and  was  one  of  the  chief  factors 
in  bringing  about  in  Massachusetts,  in  1833, 
the  final  separation  of  church  and  state. 
A  similar  divorce  had  been  attained  in  Con 
necticut  in  1818.  In  the  Middle  States  and 
the  West  the  spread  of  Methodism  was 
attended  by  great  religious  revivals,  stirring 
to  spiritual  fervor  whole  communities  and 
preparing  the  way  for  the  later  enthrone 
ment  of  moral  issues  in  politics.  Between 
abolition  and  the  churches  there  was,  to  be 
sure,  little  formal  sympathy  and  much  open 
hostility;  but  in  this  as  in  so  many  other 
cases,  persecution  and  neglect  ultimately 
helped  the  cause. 

The  decade  from  1830  to  1840  saw  also 
the  rise  or  marked  development  of  the 
temperance  or  total  abstinence  movement, 
an  increased  interest  in  public  education, 
and  the  establishment  of  institutions  for 
the  better  treatment  of  criminals,  insane, 
and  defectives.  Prison  reform  made  hopeful 
progress;  and  although  it  was  estimated  in 
1833  that  not  less  than  75,000  persons  were 
annually  imprisoned  in  the  United  States 
for  debt,1  the  case  was  better  than  it  had 
been.  A  beginning  was  made  in  the  separa- 

1  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States, 
VI,  99. 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         79 

tion  of  the  insane  from  criminals,  with  whom 
they  had  usually  been  confined. 

Industrial  development,  too,  was  every 
where  working  revolutionary  changes,  the 
moral  and  political  significance  of  which 
was  to  appear  as  years  went  on.  In  New 
England,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania  the 
rise  of  the  factory  system  drew  to  the  towns 
the  young  men  and  women  of  the  country 
districts,  thereby  decreasing  the  supply  of 
farm  labor  and,  in  consequence,  the  pro 
ductivity  of  agriculture;  and  bringing  in  its 
train,  by  1840,  new  problems  of  housing, 
sanitation,  wages,  child  labor,  and  morals. 
For  the  first  time  in  America  wage-earning 
occupations  on  a  considerable  scale  were 
opened  to  women.  In  addition,  the  building 
of  railroads  created  a  new  demand  for  labor, 
both  skilled  and  unskilled,  not  only  for  con 
struction,  but  in  the  numerous  trades  or 
occupations  which  railroad  building  en 
couraged,  and  in  the  handling  of  the  freight 
and  passenger  business  which  the  railroad 
developed. 

The  demand  for  higher  wages,  shorter 
hours,  the  regulation  of  apprentices,  free 
dom  of  contract,  and  the  right  to  combine 
for  the  attainment  of  better  conditions, 
brought  to  the  front  the  labor  movement, 
which  after  1825  made  rapid  progress. 
Occasional  strikes  and  riots  showed  the 
uneasiness  of  the  masses  and  a  slowly  grow- 


80    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

ing  consciousness  of  power.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  rapid  increase  in  the  volume  of 
immigration,  rising  from  10,000  in  1825 
to  84,000  in  1840,  led  to  clashing  between 
natives  and  foreign-born,  and  contributed 
largely,  after  1840,  to  drive  native  labor 
from  the  mills;  while  the  fact  that  many 
who  came  were  paupers,  or  what  would 
now  be  called  "assisted  immigrants,"  brought 
to  the  cities  of  the  Atlantic  seaboard  new 
problems  of  charity,  education,  and  order. 

Economic  ideals  and  social  Utopias,  also, 
were  being  exploited  and  discussed.  Robert 
Owen's  community  at  New  Harmony,  Indi 
ana,  in  1825;  brook  Farm  at  Roxbury  (now 
a  part  of  Boston),  Massachusetts,  in  1831, 
together  with  numerous  cooperative  enter 
prises  in  other  States,  evidenced  dissatis 
faction  with  the  wages  system  and  a  desire 
for  a  new  and  better  industrial  order.  Time- 
honored  social  institutions  like  private  prop 
erty,  and  even  the  institution  of  marriage, 
were  publicly  attacked,  as  by  Owen  in  his 
"Declaration  of  Mental  Independence"  in 
1826,  and  the  lectures  of  Frances  Wright  in 
1828-29.  The  number  of  women  operatives 
in  factories  gave  strength  to  the  demand  for 
"women's  rights,"  especially  for  freedom 
to  speak  in  churches  or  public  meetings, 
first  voiced  by  the  Abolitionists  about  1840, 
and  for  independent  control  of  earnings  and 
property. 


SLAVERY  AND  ABOLITION         81 

Lastly,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  aboli 
tion  movement  coincides  with  the  beginning 
of  a  period  of  notable  literary  development. 
The  years  after  1815  witnessed  a  great  multi 
plication  of  newspapers  and  magazines, 
both  secular  and  religious,  some  of  which, 
like  the  North  American  Review,  Zion's 
Herald,  and  the  New  York  Christian  Advo 
cate,  had  a  circulation  rivaling  that  of  the 
foremost  English  periodicals.  Among  Amer 
ican  writers  James  Fenimore  Cooper  held 
the  first  place;  Bryant,  Longfellow,  Poe, 
and  Whittier  were  gaining  an  increasing 
audience;  Bancroft  and  Sparks  were  laying 
the  foundations  for  the  study  of  American 
history ;  and  Story  and  Kent  had  taken  rank 
among  the  foremost  legal  authors.  The 
first  edition  of  Noah  Webster's  Dictionary 
appeared  in  1828;  while  1833  saw  the  estab 
lishment  of  the  first  free  public  library  in 
America,  at  Peterboro',  New  Hampshire, 
and  1837  Emerson's  great  Phi  Beta  Kappa 
address  at  Harvard  on  "The  American 
Scholar."  No  time  more  opportune  for  a 
crusade  against  human  slavery  could  possibly 
have  been  chosen  than  this  period  of  intel 
lectual  and  spiritual  awakening. 


CHAPTER  V 

TEXAS  AND   OREGON 

WE  have  already  seen  how  the  Missouri 
Compromise  of  1820,  in  its  attempt  at  a 
permanent  adjustment  of  the  territorial 
claims  of  slavery,  allotted  to  the  North  the 
larger  part  of  the  Louisiana  acquisition, 
while  restricting  the  South  to  the  region  out 
of  which  were  eventually  formed  only  the 
Indian  Territory  and  the  State  of  Arkansas. 
We  have  now  to  see  how  the  demand  for 
more  slave  territory,  joined  to  the  inevi 
table  expansion  of  the  United  States  in  the 
direction  of  natural  boundaries,  won  com 
pensation  in  the  annexation  of  Texas. 

In  1803  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  trans 
ferred  to  the  United  States  the  claims  of 
France  to  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi. 
The  western  limits  of  Louisiana,  whether 
as  a  Spanish  or  as  a  French  province,  had 
never  been  defined;  and  the  language  of 
the  treaty,  which,  adopting  the  language  of 
the  secret  treaty  of  San  Ildefonso,  in  1800, 
ceded  "the  colony  or  province  of  Louisiana, 
with  the  same  extent  that  it  now  has  in  the 

82 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  83 

hands  of  Spain,  and  that  it  had  when  France 
possessed  it,  and  such  as  it  should  be  after 
the  treaties  subsequently  entered  into  be 
tween  Spain  and  other  States,"  was  vague 
and  contradictory. 

The  main  point  at  issue  in  the  later  con 
troversy  was  whether  or  not  Louisiana, 
either  as  a  French  province  or  under  previous 
Spanish  rule,  included  any  part  of  Texas. 
In  1819  the  Florida  treaty  with  Spain,  nego 
tiated  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  by 
John  Quincy  Adams,  fixed  the  Sabine  River, 
the  present  eastern  boundary  of  Texas,  as 
the  boundary  between  the  United  States 
and  the  Spanish  possessions.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  Adams  was  in  error,  and 
unwittingly  surrendered  to  Spain  some  terri 
tory  to  which  the  United  States  had  a  valid 
claim;  but  he  apparently  acted  in  good  faith, 
and  it  was  some  years  before  the  question 
was  again  carefully  examined. 

In  1821  the  treaty  of  Cordova  secured  the 
independence  of  Mexico,  and  three  years 
later  a  federal  form  of  government  was  adop 
ted,  with  Texas  and  Coahuila  united  as 
one  of  the  States.  In  1827  a  Texan  congress 
drew  up  a  constitution,  which  was  pro 
claimed,  prohibiting  the  further  importation 
of  slaves  and  providing  for  the  gradual 
emancipation  of  slaves  already  there.  In 
1828  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico  confirmed  the  boundary  of  1819. 


84    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

The  opposition  in  Texas  to  the  foreign 
slave  trade  and  slavery  unfortunately  coin 
cided  in  time  with  the  change  of  attitude 
in  the  South  towards  protection  and  State 
rights,  and  with  the  strong  movement  of 
population  into  the  rich  cotton  lands  of 
Alabama  and  Mississippi.  The  cotton  belt 
reaches  its  greatest  width  in  Texas,  and  the 
expansion  of  cotton  culture  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  natural  cotton  area  was,  of 
course,  inevitable.  With  the  entrance  into 
Texas  of  Americans,  many  of  whom,  in 
spite  of  the  Texan  constitution,  took  their 
slaves  with  them,  there  arose  before  long 
in  the  South  and  Southwest  a  demand  for 
annexation. 

In  1827  Clay,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
instructed  the  American  minister  to  Mexico 
to  offer  a  million  dollars  for  the  territory 
east  of  the  Rio  Grande  River;  but  for 
various  reasons  the  offer  was  not  made. 
In  1829  Van  Buren,  Secretary  of  State  under 
Jackson,  authorized  an  offer  of  four  or  five 
millions  for  the  portion  of  Texas  east  of 
the  Nueces  River,  but  Mexico  refused  to 
consider  a  proposition  to  sell. 

The  demand  for  annexation  was  not 
wholly  economic,  however.  Texas  was  nearly 
four  times  the  size  of  New  England,  and 
larger  than  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  Missouri.  The 
acquisition  of  such  an  area,  and  its  division 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  85 

into  four  or  five  States,  would  effectually 
offset  the  territorial  gain  of  the  North  in 
1820,  and  assure  the  maintenance  of  the 
indispensable  balance  between  the  sections 
in  the  Senate. 

Between  Texas  and  the  rest  of  the  Mexican 
Republic,  on  the  other  hand,  relations  were 
not  friendly.  The  first  step  towards  inde 
pendence  was  taken  in  1833,  when  a  new 
Texan  constitution  was  framed;  but  as 
the  constitution  was  not  recognized  by  Mex 
ico  nor  actually  put  into  effect,  the  move 
ment  for  the  moment  came  to  nothing.  In 
1835,  however,  a  provisional  government 
was  formed,  with  a  provisional  constitution, 
and  the  long  war  with  Mexico  began.  On 
the  2d  of  March  a  declaration  of  independ 
ence  was  issued,  and  two  weeks  later  a  con 
stitution  was  established  which  recognized 
slavery  and  forbade  the  Congress  of  Texas 
to  emancipate  slaves,  but  at  the  same  time 
prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves  except 
from  the  United  States.  The  boundary 
between  Texas  and  the  United  States,  as 
set  forth  in  the  constitution,  was  that  of 
1819.  The  president  of  Mexico,  Santa 
Anna,  invaded  Texas,  butchered  to  a  man 
the  garrison  at  the  Alamo  mission,  near  San 
Antonio,  and  committed  indescribable  bar 
barities;  but  in  April  he  was  defeated  and 
taken  prisoner  by  a  Texan  force  under  Sam 
Houston,  the  president  of  the  new  republic. 


86    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  move 
ment  for  independence,  however  acceptable 
to  the  Texans  themselves,  was  materially 
aided  by  Americans  resident  in  Texas.  The 
recognition  of  slavery,  and  the  permission 
to  import  slaves  from  the  United  States 
only,  were  obviously  intended  to  win  Amer 
ican,  and  especially  Southern,  support. 

In  July,  1836,  resolutions  to  recognize 
the  independence  of  Texas  were  adopted 
by  both  houses  of  Congress.  An  angry 
debate  in  the  House  over  abolition  peti 
tions,  ending  in  the  adoption  of  the  "gag" 
rule,  had  just  closed;  and  the  presidential 
election  was  at  hand.  As  neither  of  the 
political  parties  adopted  a  platform  in  that 
year,  a  formal  declaration  of  policy  was 
avoided.  In  December  Jackson,  who  had 
already  sent  an  agent  to  investigate  the 
situation,  urged  delay,  and  suggested  that 
some  other  government  might  well  be  al 
lowed  to  extend  recognition  first.  At  the 
same  time  he  protested  that  the  conduct  of 
the  United  States  had  been  beyond  reproach. 
On  this  last  point  Jackson  knew  better. 
Throughout  the  summer  newspapers  had 
reported  volunteers  openly  proceeding  to 
Texas;  Texan  recruiting  officers  had  carried 
on  their  work  in  the  United  States  without 
interference;  armed  vessels  had  been  fitted 
out  in  American  waters;  and  American  naval 
vessels  had  saluted  Texan  armed  vessels 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  87 

as  ships  of  war.1  At  the  end  of  June  a  United 
States  force  under  General  Gaines  had  ad 
vanced  into  Texas,  and  in  October  the 
Mexican  minister  at  Washington  had  de 
manded  his  passports. 

The  question  of  recognition  was  further 
complicated  by  the  existence  of  a  considera 
ble  volume  of  claims  against  Mexico  by 
the  United  States  and  its  citizens.  Robbery 
and  imprisonment  of  Americans  in  Mexico, 
seizure  of  treasure  in  transit  from  the  mines 
to  the  coast,  capture  and  condemnation  of 
American  vessels,  and  insults  offered  to  the 
American  consul  at  Matamoras,  were  among 
the  injuries  complained  of.  In  February, 
1837,  his  patience  exhausted,  Jackson  recom 
mended  reprisals,  and  asked  for  authority 
to  make  one  more  demand  for  redress  "from 
on  board  one  of  our  vessels  of  war."  Con 
gress  was  not  ready  to  go  to  war,  but  on 
February  28  the  House  voted  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  a  diplomatic  representative  in 
Texas,  and  the  next  day  the  Senate  adopted 
a  resolution  for  the  recognition  of  inde 
pendence.  This  informal  recognition  by 
the  United  States  was  shortly  followed  by 
recognition  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
France,  and  Belgium.  In  October,  1838, 
a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Texas  provided  for  marking  the  boundary. 

In  August,  1837,  Texas  proposed  annexa- 

1  Von  Hoist,  United  States,  II,  571-585. 


88    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

tion.  The  proposal  was  declined  by  For- 
syth,  Secretary  of  State,  partly  on  consti 
tutional  grounds  and  partly  because  of 
treaty  obligations  with  Mexico.  Save  for 
the  presentation  in  Congress  of  memorials 
on  both  sides  of  the  question,  no  further 
action  [was  taken  during  Van  Buren's 
term. 

The  election  of  1840  was  a  sweeping  vic 
tory  for  the  Whigs,  the  Whig  candidate 
for  President,  William  Henry  Harrison  of 
Ohio,  receiving  234  electoral  votes  against 
60  for  Van  Buren.  The  sudden  death  of 
Harrison,  however,  exactly  one  month  after 
his  inauguration,  brought  the  Vice-President, 
John  Tyler  of  Virginia,  to  the  presidential 
chair.  Tyler  was  in  reality  a  strict  construc 
tion  Democrat,  whose  claim  to  be  regarded 
as  a  Whig  rested  upon  no  better  ground 
than  that  of  opposition  to  Van  Buren  and 
to  certain  elements  in  his  own  party.  The 
inevitable  breach  was  not  long  in  appearing. 

A  law  establishing  a  subtreasury  system, 
under  which  the  federal  government  was 
to  care  for  its  own  funds  directly  without 
the  agency  of  banks,  had  been  passed  by 
Democratic  votes  in  1840.  The  Whigs, 
with  a  majority  now  in  both  houses  of  Con 
gress,  repealed  the  law,  and  Tyler  signed  the 
bill.  This  was  interpreted  to  mean  that 
Tyler  favored  the  Whig  policy  of  a  national 
bank,  and  a  bill  to  create  a  "fiscal  bank" 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  89 

was  presently  passed.  Tyler,  who  as  a 
member  of  Congress  had  been  no  friend  to 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  vetoed  the 
bill  on  constitutional  grounds. 

After  consultation  with  the  President, 
another  bank  bill  presumably  in  accordance 
with  his  views  was  passed,  only  to  encounter 
another  veto.  Thereupon  the  Whig  mem 
bers  of  Congress,  in  addresses  to  the  people, 
repudiated  Tyler,  and  the  cabinet,  with  the 
exception  of  Webster,  Secretary  of  State, 
resigned.  Only  a  small  number  of  Whigs, 
known  as  the  "corporal's  guard,"  supported 
the  President.  Webster,  who  was  busy  with 
negotiations  with  Lord  Ashburton  over  the 
long-standing  northeastern  boundary  dis 
pute,  remained  in  office  until  the  conclu 
sion  of  the  Webster-Ashburton  Treaty,  in 
1842;  then  he  tardily  resigned,  and  subse 
quently  reentered  the  Senate.  Tyler  con 
tinued  his  strict  construction  policy,  vetoing 
two  tariff  bills,  and  compelling  the  abandon 
ment  of  a  scheme  for  the  distribution  of 
surplus  revenue  before  the  tariff  of  1842 
finally  received  his  approval. 

Meanwhile  the  slavery  question  continued 
to  agitate  Congress.  In  March,  1842, 
Joshua  R.  Giddings  of  Ohio  was^censured  by 
the  House  for  offering  in  that  body  resolu 
tions  denying  the  right  of  the  United  States 
to  reenslave  negroes  captured  on  the  high 
seas,  and  reaffirming  the  doctrine  of  Lord 


90    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Mansfield  in  the  Somerset  case,  in  1770, 
that  slavery,  "being  an  abridgment  of 
the  natural  rights  of  man,  can  exist  only  by 
force  of  positive  municipal  law."  Giddings 
at  once  resigned  his  seat,  was  triumphantly 
reflected,  and  resumed  his  seat  in  May. 

The  question  of  Texas,  too,  was  sim 
mering.  Tyler  was  known  to  be  strongly 
in  favor  of  annexation,  the  accomplishment 
of  which  would  shed  a  much  needed  luster 
upon  his  administration;  and  apparently 
only  the  presence  in  his  cabinet  of  Webster, 
who  did  not  resign  until  May,  1843,  stayed 
his  hand.  Already,  in  March,  a  number  of 
antislavery  members  of  Congress,  headed 
by  Adams,  had  issued  an  address  warning 
the  people  of  the  North  that  annexation 
was  imminent,  and  declaring  that  in  their 
opinion  such  action  would  amount  to  a 
dissolution  of  the  Union. 

No  nation  can  long  view  with  indifference 
the  continuance  of  a  civil  war  on  its  borders; 
and  the  war  between  Texas  and  Mexico, 
which  had  gone  on  since  1837,  was  becoming 
both  desultory  and  devastating,  and  gave 
no  indication  of  ultimate  Mexican  success. 
In  his  annual  message  of  December,  1843, 
Tyler  reviewed  the  progress  of  the  war, 
declared  bluntly  that  "it  is  time  that  this 
war  had  ceased,"  and  made  it  clear  that  the 
United  States  would  not  be  deterred  from 
continued  recognition  of  the  independence 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  91 

of  Texas  by  any  threats  on  the  part  of  Mexico. 
Attention  was  also  called  to  the  fact  that  the 
overland  trade  with  Santa  Fe,  in  which 
considerable  American  capital  was  invested, 
had  been  interrupted,  and  that  foreigners 
might  shortly  be  excluded  from  the  Mexican 
retail  trade. 

From  diplomatic  correspondence  accom 
panying  the  message  it  appeared  that  the 
United  States  was  apprehensive  lest  Great 
Britain  should  open  negotiations  with  Texas 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery  there.  In  a 
letter  to  Pakenham,  the  British  minister 
at  Washington,  Lord  Aberdeen  denied  such 
intention,  "although,"  he  added,  "we  shall 
not  desist  from  those  open  and  honest 
efforts  which  we  have  constantly  made  for 
procuring  the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout 
the  world."  In  view  of  the  hostile  attitude 
of  Great  Britain  towards  the  North  during 
the  Civil  War,  the  declaration  of  Lord 
Aberdeen  at  this  time  is  interesting. 

April  22,  1844,  Tyler  submitted  to  the 
Senate  a  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
concluded  ten  days  previously.  In  trans 
mitting  a  copy  of  the  treaty  to  Edward 
Everett,  the  American  minister  at  London, 
Calhoun,  who  had  lately  become  Secretary 
of  State,  declared  that  annexation  had  been 
rendered  necessary  "by  the  condition  in 
which  the  avowed  policy  of  Great  Britain, 
as  proclaimed  in  Lord  Aberdeen's  dispatch, 


92    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

had  placed  the  United  States";  and  that 
"this  government  could  not  quietly  fold  its 
arms,  while  a  policy  was  avowed  and  meas 
ures  adopted  so  fatal  to  the  safety  and  pros 
perity  of  the  Union."  The  inseparable  con 
nection  between  annexation  and  slavery 
needed  no  more  explicit  avowal. 

The  moment  was  both  critical  and  em 
barrassing.  Tyler,  in  transmitting  the  treaty, 
not  only  claimed  full  authority  to  nego 
tiate  it,  but  also  virtually  assumed  that 
Texas,  having  voluntarily  accepted  the 
treaty,  was  to  be  considered  as  already  a 
part  of  the  United  States.  The  Senate  was 
inclined  to  hold  that  the  annexation  of  an 
independent  state  could  be  achieved  only  by 
act  of  Congress,  and  not  by  treaty.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  submission  of  the  treaty 
at  this  time  made  annexation,  whether 
accomplished  or  not,  the  preeminent  issue 
in  the  presidential  campaign  of  1844.  That 
Tyler  was  not  lacking  in  political  shrewd 
ness  was  shown  in  May,  when,  with  the 
treaty  still  under  discussion  in  secret  ses 
sion,  he  sent  to  the  Senate  a  letter  from 
Jackson,  in  which  the  "old  hero"  declared 
that  "the  present  golden  moment  to  obtain 
Texas  must  not  be  lost,  or  Texas  might 
from  necessity  be  thrown  into  the  arms  of 
England  and  be  forever  lost  to  the  United 
States." 

Jackson's  letter  was  communicated  about 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  93 

four  weeks  after  Clay,  in  a  letter  on  the  same 
subject,  had  opposed  annexation  at  the 
present  time  "as  a  measure  compromising 
the  national  character,  involving  us  certainly 
in  a  war  with  Mexico,  probably  with  other 
foreign  powers,  dangerous  to  the  integrity 
of  the  Union,  inexpedient  in  the  present 
financial  condition  of  the  country,  and  not 
called  for  by  any  general  expression  of 
public  opinion."  Clay  hoped  for  the  Whig 
nomination,  and  his  letter  pleased  the  North. 
Van  Buren,  coveting  the  Democratic  nomi 
nation,  nevertheless  declared  against  annexa 
tion  "at  present,"  but  stated  that,  were 
he  President,  he  should  act  in  the  matter 
conformably  to  the  opinion  of  Congress. 
Benton,  in  the  Senate,  oposed  annexation 
if  it  meant  war  with  Mexico. 

At  the  end  of  May  the  Democratic 
national  convention  at  Baltimore  adopted 
a  platform  calling  for  "the  reoccupation  of 
Oregon  and  the  reannexation  of  Texas  at 
the  earliest  practicable  period"  as  "great 
American  measures."  We  must  now  trace 
the  steps  by  which  Oregon  came  to  form, 
jointly  with  Texas,  an  issue  in  the  campaign. 

The  region  known  in  1844  as  Oregon, 
or  the  "Oregon  country,"  comprised  the 
whole  area  betweeen  latitudes  42°  and  54° 
40',  west  of  the  watershed  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains.  In  1790  the  Nootka  Sound 
convention,  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain, 


94    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

provided  for  joint  rights  of  fishing  and  trade 
to  be  exercised  by  the  two  powers.  The 
discovery  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia 
River,  in  1792,  by  an  American  sea-captain, 
laid  the  foundation  of  a  territorial  claim  by 
the  United  States;  and  the  claim  was 
further  strengthened  by  the  Lewis  and 
Clark  expedition  of  1803-6,  which  explored 
the  upper  waters  of  the  Missouri  and  fol 
lowed  the  Columbia  to  the  sea.  By  the 
Florida  Treaty  of  1819  Spain  gave  up  its 
claims  to  territory  on  the  Pacific  coast 
north  of  42°,  and  in  1825  Russia  abandoned 
its  claims  south  of  54°  40 '.  These  renun 
ciations  left  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  the  joint  claimants  and  occupants 
of  the  Oregon  country. 

During  the  War  of  1812  the  fur- trading 
post  at  Astoria,  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Columbia,  lately  established  by  John  Jacob 
Astor,  was  taken  by  the  British,  but  was 
restored  at  the  end  of  the  war.  In  1818  the 
two  powers  agreed  upon  the  parallel  49° 
as  the  provisional  boundary  between  Brit 
ish  and  American  possessions  from  the  Lake 
of  the  Woods  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and 
to  a  joint  occupancy  of  Oregon  for  ten  years. 
In  1827  the  agreement  for  joint  occupancy 
was  renewed,  subject  to  termination  at  any 
time  on  twelve  months'  notice  by  either 
party.  With  the  exception  of  Astoria  and 
some  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  95 

there  were  as  yet  no  white  settlements  in 
the  region. 

The  advent  of  Protestant  missionaries 
to  the  Indians,  in  1835,  was  followed,  in 
1843,  by  the  arrival  of  a  company  of  several 
hundred  persons  from  the  central  West,  led 
by  Dr.  Marcus  Whitman.  The  expedition 
followed  an  earnest  appeal  to  the  American 
Board  of  Missions  by  Dr.  Whitman,  who 
made  a  hazardous  winter  journey  from 
Oregon  to  Boston  to  forestall,  if  possible, 
the  anticipated  closing  of  the  mission.  The 
spectacular  nature  of  the  journey,  the  omis 
sion  of  any  reference  to  Oregon  in  the  Web- 
ster-Ashburton  Treaty  of  1842,  the  interest 
aroused  by  the  proposed  expedition,  and 
the  joining  of  Oregon  and  Texas  in  the  Demo 
cratic  platform  of  1844,  gave  rise  some  years 
later  to  the  "Marcus  Whitman  legend," 
which  ascribed  to  Whitman's  journey  the 
political  purpose  of  prevailing  upon  Tyler 
not  to  relinquish  Oregon  to  Great  Britain. 

There  was  never  any  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  administration  of  surrendering  Ore 
gon,  the  southern  portion  of  which  was  geo 
graphically  a  part  of  the  United  States. 
There  was,  however,  great  ignorance  con 
cerning  the  region,  and  it  was  doubtless  the 
wish  of  Great  Britain  to  leave  the  question 
open,  so  as  eventually,  perhaps,  to  make 
the  Columbia  River  the  boundary.  By 
asserting  in  their  platform  that  "our  title 


96    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

to  the  whole  of  the  territory  of  Oregon  is 
clear  and  unquestionable,"  and  that  "no 
portion  of  the  same  ought  to  be  ceded  to 
England  or  any  other  power";  and  by 
demanding  "the  reoccupation  of  Oregon" 
in  connection  with  "the  reannexation  of 
Texas,"  the  Democrats  not  only  shrewdly 
used  Oregon  as  an  offset  to  Texas,  thereby 
appealing  to  the  antislavery  North,  but 
also  skillfully  fostered  the  popular  impres 
sion  that  both  regions  had  at  some  time 
belonged  to  the  United  States,  and  were 
now  to  be  recovered. 

To  the  South  the  scheme  was  less  pleasing. 
The  Oregon  of  1844  was  not  merely  the 
present  State  of  that  name,  but  a  vast  region 
more  than  twice  the  size  of  Texas.  If  the 
annexation  of  Texas  was  to  be  consummated 
only  at  the  price  of  acquiring  Oregon  at 
the  same  time,  there  was  no  apparent  gain 
for  slavery,  nor  was  the  sectional  balance  in 
the  Senate  likely  to  be  preserved. 

After  having  had  the  treaty  of  annexation 
before  it  for  nearly  seven  weeks,  the  Senate, 
on  the  8th  of  June,  rejected  it  by  a  vote  of 
16  to  35.  Two  days  later  Tyler  took  the 
extraordinary  step  of  sending  the  treaty 
to  the  House,  with  a  message  in  which, 
without  criticising  the  Senate,  he  urged  the 
necessity  of  prompt  action,  pointed  out  that 
a  treaty  was  not  the  only  method  by  which 
annexation  could  be  accomplished,  and 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  97 

promised  his  "active  cooperation"  in  any 
course  that  might  be  agreed  upon. 

The  platforms  of  the  Whig  and  Liberty 
parties  were  silent  on  the  question  of  annexa 
tion.  Clay,  who  was  unanimously  nomi 
nated  by  the  Whigs,  attempted  in  August  to 
define  his  position  more  clearly,  doubtless 
with  a  view  to  holding  the  Whig  support  in 
the  South.  What  he  said  in  August  did  not 
differ  materially  from  what  he  had  said  in 
April,  but  his  approval  of  annexation  if  it 
could  be  accomplished  honorably  and  with 
out  war  was  bitterly  attacked  by  the  Aboli 
tionists,  and  cost  him  the  votes  of  Michigan 
and  New  York.  Van  Buren's  letter  against 
annexation,  a  step  of  some  boldness  under 
the  circumstances,  weakened  him  as  a  Demo 
cratic  candidate  for  the  presidency,  and  on 
the  ninth  ballot  the  Baltimore  convention 
nominated  a  "dark  horse,"  James  K.  Polk 
of  Tennessee.  Baltimore  and  Washington 
had  just  been  connected  by  telegraph,  and 
within  twenty  minutes  after  the  nomination 
a  message  had  been  sent  to  the  Democratic 
members  of  Congress  and  a  reply  received. 

Polk  had  been  an  acceptable  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  although 
he  was  little  known  to  the  country  at  large, 
his  nomination,  which  had  been  carefully 
planned,  was  satisfactory  to  the  South  and 
aroused  no  party  opposition  in  the  North. 
Clay's  popularity,  always  great,  was  now  at 


98    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

its  height.  The  campaign,  with  its  mass 
meetings,  processions,  barbecues,  and  general 
enthusiasm,  recalled  the  "log  cabin  and 
hard  cider"  campaign  of  1840.  Thanks  to 
the  Abolitionists,  the  victory  went  to  the 
Democrats.  The  electoral  vote  stood  170 
for  Polk  and  105  for  Clay,  but  in  a  total 
popular  vote,  Democratic  and  Whig,  of 
2,636,305,  Folk's  majority  was  only  38,180, 
or  less  than  two-thirds  of  the  number  cast 
for  Birney,  the  Liberty  party  candidate. 
It  was  the  Abolitionists  who  turned  the 
scale  in  New  York  and  Michigan,  and  gave 
the  forty-one  electoral  votes  of  those  States 
to  Polk. 

In  his  annual  message  in  December  Tyler 
rightly  interpreted  the  election  as  a  verdict 
in  favor  of  annexation.  "It  is  the  will  of 
both  the  people  and  the  States  that  Texas 
shall  be  annexed  to  the  Union  promptly 
and  immediately."  Mindful  of  the  fate  of 
the  treaty  the  previous  June,  he  now  recom 
mended  the  passage  of  a  joint  resolution. 
Numerous  propositions  to  give  effect  to  the 
recommendation  were  at  once  introduced  in 
Congress,  and  on  the  1st  of  March,  1845, 
a  joint  resolution  for  annexation  received 
Tyler's  approval. 

The  resolution  provided  that  all  questions 
concerning  the  boundary  of  Texas  should 
be  left  to  the  determination  of  the  United 
States;  that  the  constitution  of  the  State 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON  99 

should  be  submitted  to  Congress  for  ap 
proval;  and  that  public  buildings  and 
military  and  naval  property  should  be  turned 
over  to  the  United  States.  Texas  was  to 
retain  its  public  funds  and  unappropriated 
lands,  the  proceeds  of  the  latter  to  be  used 
for  the  discharge  of  the  State  debt.  New 
States,  not  exceeding  four,  in  addition  to 
Texas,  might,  with  the  consent  of  Texas, 
be  formed  out  of  the  annexed  territory.  In 
such  States  as  should  be  formed  north  of 
36°  30'  slavery  was  to  be  prohibited;  in 
those  formed  south  of  that  line  slavery  should 
be  allowed  or  not  as  the  people  of  the  State 
might  decide  at  the  time  of  its  admission. 
The  area  of  the  territory  acquired  was 
371,063  square  miles. 

The  terms  prescribed  by  the  joint  reso 
lution  were  accepted  by  the  Congress  of 
Texas  June  18,  and  by  a  convention  at 
Austin  July  4.  A  State  constitution  was  at 
once  drawn  up,  ratified  by  popular  vote  in 
October,  and  on  December  29  a  joint  resolu 
tion  of  Congress  admitted  Texas  as  a  State. 
The  anticipated  division  of  the  State,  how 
ever,  never  took  place,  and  instead .  of  the 
five  commonwealths,  each  with  two  Senators 
and  at  least  one  Representative,  upon 
which  the  South  had  counted,  there  were 
gained  for  slavery  only  two  Senators  and 
two  Representatives. 

In  the  same  message  of  December,  1844, 


100    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Tyler  informed  Congress  that  negotiations 
had  been  begun  for  adjusting  the  claims 
of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  to 
Oregon,  and  urged  military  and  legal  pro 
tection  of  the  American  settlers  already 
there.  In  1826,  and  again  in  1844,  Great 
Britain  had  offered  to  accept  as  a  com 
promise  boundary  the  parallel  49°  and  the 
Columbia  River,  together  with  the  free 
navigation  of  the  river.  That  offer  was  now 
renewed,  with  the  addition  of  a  small 
amount  of  territory  north  of  the  river  and 
of  some  free  ports  on  the  Pacific;  but  the 
offer  was  promptly  rejected  by  the  United 
States.  In  February,  1845,  the  House  passed 
a  bill  to  organize  a  territorial  government 
in  Oregon,  with  54°  40',  the  line  of  the  for 
mer  Russian  claim,  as  the  northern  boundary. 
Where  Great  Britain  had  been  content  to 
ask  for  two-thirds  of  the  "Oregon  country," 
the  United  States  now  claimed  the  whole. 
Such  a  claim  was  not  likely  to  smooth  the 
course  of  diplomatic  negotiations,  however 
much  it  might  appeal  to  those  in  the  North 
who  wanted  an  offset  to  Texas.  The  bill 
also  prohibited  slavery  in  Oregon,  however, 
and  on  that  account  the  Senate  refused  to 
consider  it. 

Two  days  after  the  resolution  for  the  an 
nexation  of  Texas  received  the  signature  of 
the  President,  Florida  became  a  State.  With 
the  admission  of  Texas  before  the  end  of  the 


TEXAS  AND  OREGON;  iV  :    ,101 

year,  the  sectional  balance  was  temporarily 
disturbed,  fifteen  of  the  twenty-eight  States 
then  in  the  Union  being  slave  common  wealths. 
The  Territory  of  Iowa,  however,  was  about 
ready  for  admission,  and  Oregon  would 
restore  the  balance.  Save  in  the  Senate, 
the  South  was  hopelessly  outnumbered  and 
outvoted.  Against  a  free  State  population, 
in  1840,  of  9,700,000  was  to  be  set  a  slave 
State  population  (counting  three-fifths  of 
the  slaves  in  addition  to  the  whites)  of  only 
7,300,000.  In  terms  of  membership  and 
votes  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
these  figures  meant  that  98  slave  State 
members  in  1844  were  opposed  by  135  free 
State  members. 

There  is  need  to  remember,  however, 
that  both  in  Congress  and  in  the  country 
sectionalism  was  as  yet  rather  more  obvious 
in  statistics  than  it  was  in  party  politics. 
The  Democratic  and  Whig  parties  were 
still  national  parties,  drawing  their  support 
from  all  sections,  though  in  different  measure, 
and  not  yet  sharply  divided  by  a  single 
overshadowing  issue.  There  were  slavery 
Whigs  and  antislavery  Whigs,  slavery  Demo 
crats  and  antislavery  Democrats.  Save 
for  denunciation  of  the  Abolitionists  as 
visionaries  and  fanatics,  it  was  the  aim  of 
the  Democrats  to  keep  the  slavery  question, 
as  far  as  possible,  out  of  politics,  and 
thereby  obviate  the  necessity  of  taking  a 


-FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

party  stand  in  regard  to  it.  The  Whigs,  with 
a  large  antislavery,  but  not  abolition,  fol 
lowing  in  the  North  and  a  strong  pro- 
slavery  following  in  the  South,  could  hardly 
speak  on  the  subject  at  all. 

To  the  influence  of  party  in  safeguarding 
the  interests  of  slavery  were  to  be  added 
differences  of  opinion  among  antislavery 
advocates  as  to  how  slavery  should  be 
opposed.  The  demand  of  Garrison  and  his 
followers  for  entire  abolition  received  dimin 
ishing  support  after  1840.  In  its  place  the 
application  of  the  principle  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  the  suppression  of  the  foreign 
slave  trade,  and  freedom  for  the  Territories 
and  new  acquisitions  seemed  to  promise 
more  substantial  results.  With  the  knowl 
edge  that  Texas  would  not  consent  to  be 
subdivided,  came  declining  resentment  over 
its  annexation.  On  no  bill  or  motion  adverse 
to  slavery  could  the  entire  vote  of  the  free 
States  in  both  houses  of  Congress  be  at  any 
time  massed.  Until  it  could  be,  or  until 
changing  issues  should  bring  a  new  grouping 
of  parties,  the  slaveholding  South,  with  a 
preeminent  cause,  a  definite  policy,  and 
social  as  well  as  political  solidarity,  might 
be  counted  upon  to  hold  its  own,  and  in 
holding  its  own  to  dominate  the  nation. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   WAR   WITH   MEXICO 

THE  cabinet  of  President  Polk  comprised 
a  number  of  distinguished  names.  The 
Secretary  of  State,  James  Buchanan,  had 
been  long  in  public  life,  and  managed  with 
dignity  and  success  the  diplomatic  business 
of  his  department;  although  his  lack  of 
sympathy  with  the  Mexican  policy  of  the 
administration,  together  with  his  own  presi 
dential  aspirations,  weakened  his  influence 
as  time  went  on.  Robert  J.  Walker  of  Mis 
sissippi,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  was 
an  able  financier,  with  sound  and  definite 
views  on  the  tariff  and  on  the  treatment  of 
the  government  funds.  The  Secretary  of 
War,  William  L.  Marcy,  long  a  member  of 
the  "Albany  regency"  and  twice  governor 
of  New  York,  possessed  real  administrative 
ability  and  unflagging  industry,  notwith 
standing  his  identification  with  the  spoils 
system.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  until 
September,  1846,  was  George  Bancroft, 
already  famous  at  home  and  abroad  as  an 
historian.  Nathan  Clifford  of  Maine,  who 

103 


104    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

entered  the  cabinet  as  attorney-general 
in  October,  1846,  was  an  able  lawyer  and 
later  an  associate  justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court. 

Polk  himself  was  a  masterful  politician. 
His  previous  career  had  not  been  notable, 
but  as  President  he  dominated  his  cabinet 
and  his  party.  His  recently  published 
diary  reveals  a  reasonably  clear  and  con 
sistent  policy,  especially  in  regard  to  Mexico, 
from  the  beginning.  During  the  first  two 
years  of  his  term  Congress  was  Democratic 
in  both  branches,  but  for  the  last  two  years 
the  Whigs  controlled  the  House. 

In  the  discussions  over  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  Clay  and  Van  Buren  in  their  cam 
paign  letters,  and  Benton  in  a  great  speech 
in  the  Senate,  had  taken  ground  against 
annexation  if  it  meant  war  with  Mexico. 
That  war  must  shortly  follow  was  now  the 
general  and  natural  expectation.  In  his 
inaugural  address  Polk  expressed  confidence 
that  the  terms  offered  by  the  United  States 
would  be  accepted  by  Texas,  but  made  no 
direct  reference  to  Mexico.  On  the  6th  of 
March,  1845,  however,  the  Mexican  min 
ister  entered  a  formal  protest  against  the 
joint  resolution  of  annexation,  and  de 
manded  his  passports.  Before  the  end  of 
the  month  the  American  minister  to  Mexico 
was  informed  that  diplomatic  relations  be 
tween  the  two  countries  had  terminated,  and 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         105 

after  a  delay  of  several  months  he  returned 
to  the  United  States.  Not  until  June,  how 
ever,  did  the  Mexican  congress  make  active 
preparations  for  war. 

The  formal  annexation  of  Texas  was 
expected  to  take  place  on  the  4th  of  July. 
In  anticipation  of  that  event,  and  to  defend 
Texas  against  Mexico,  General  Zachary 
Taylor,  commanding  the  American  forces 
in  the  Southwest,  was  ordered  in  June  to 
enter  Texas,  with  the  consent  of  that  govern 
ment,  and  to  advance  to  some  suitable 
point  "on  or  near  the  Rio  Grande";  but 
he  was  not  to  take  the  offensive  unless 
Mexico  declared  war.  Taylor  entered  Texas 
in  July,  and  in  August  established  his 
headquarters  near  Corpus  Christi,  on  the 
west  bank  of  the  Nueces  River  and  about 
one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  east  of  the 
Rio  Grande.  Here  he  remained  unmolested 
until  January,  1846. 

With  Taylor's  army  encamped  on  the 
Nueces,  Polk  made  an  attempt  to  renew 
diplomatic  relations  with  Mexico.  In  Sep 
tember  John  Slidell  of  Louisiana  was  ap 
pointed  special  envoy.  His  instructions 
directed  him  to  press  for  the  settlement  of 
the  long-standing  American  claims;  but 
since  it  was  believed  that  Mexico  was  un 
able  to  pay  even  if  disposed  to  do  so,  he 
was  to  obtain  if  possible  a  cession  of  terri 
tory,  to  include  New  Mexico  and  part  of 


106    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

California,  together  with  the  recognition  of 
the  Rio  Grande  as  the  boundary  between 
Mexico  and  Texas.  For  the  territory  so 
acquired  Polk  was  willing  to  pay  a  sub 
stantial  sum,  in  addition  to  assuming  the 
pending  claims.  A  fear,  how  well  grounded 
is  not  fully  known,  that  Great  Britain  was 
likely  to  seize  California,  joined  to  a  desire 
to  uphold  the  Monroe  doctrine,  were  the 
reasons  which  appear  to  have  weighed 
most  heavily  with  Polk  at  this  time. 

Slidell  reached  Vera  Cruz  at  the  end  of 
November.  In  January,  after  aggravating 
delay,  the  Mexican  government  refused  to 
receive  him,  and  he  presently  returned  to 
the  United  States.  The  ostensible  reasons 
for  refusal  were  that  a  resumption  of  friendly 
relations  could  not  properly  be  considered 
so  long  as  American  troops  were  encamped 
on  the  Mexican  border;  that  Mexico  had 
never  concurred  in  the  annexation  of  Texas; 
and  that  the  territorial  proposals  of  the 
United  States  went  far  beyond  the  question 
of  the  Texan  boundary.  It  seems  clear  that 
the  weakness  of  the  Mexican  government, 
and  popular  excitement  over  the  suggested 
loss  of  territory,  were  reasons  at  least  equally 
important. 

The  probability,  if  not  the  certainty,  that 
Slidell  would  be  rejected  was  known  in  Wash 
ington  early  in  January,  1846.  On  the  13th 
Taylor  was  ordered  to  advance  to  the  Rio 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         107 

Grande.  Polk  was  doubtless  sincere  in 
believing  that  the  Rio  Grande  was  legally 
the  western  boundary  of  Texas,  although 
from  the  Mexican  point  of  view  "Taylor  in 
vaded  Mexico  the  moment  he  entered 
Texas."  l  On  the  12th  of  April  Taylor  was 
warned  by  the  Mexican  commander  at 
Matamoras  to  retire  within  twenty-four 
hours  beyond  the  Nueces  —  an  order  which 
certainly  implied  some  uncertainty  on  the 
part  of  Mexico  regarding  the  ownership  of 
the  region  between  the  two  rivers. 

On  the  24th  of  April  General  Arista 
informed  Taylor  that  "he  considered  hos 
tilities  commenced  and  should  prosecute 
them."  On  the  same  day  a  party  of  Ameri 
can  dragoons,  numbering  sixty-three  officers 
and  men,  sent  to  discover  whether  the 
Mexicans  had  crossed  or  were  preparing 
to  cross  the  Rio  Grande,  was  ambushed  on 
the  east  bank  of  the  river,  some  sixteen 
were  killed  or  wounded,  and  the  remainder 
captured.  The  official  report  of  the  affair 
reached  Washington  on  Saturday,  May  11. 
Polk  had  already  decided  to  recommend  to 
Congress  a  declaration  of  war,  and  in  this 
decision  the  cabinet,  with  the  exception  of 
Bancroft,  sustained  him.  The  collision  on 
the  Rio  Grande  was  the  incident  needed  to 
make  the  recommendation  conclusive.  Presi 
dent  and  cabinet  devoted  Sunday  to  the 

1  Garrison,  Westward  Extension,  264. 


108    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

preparation  of  the  message,  and  on  Monday 
it  was  sent  in. 

To  the  Whigs  the  exalted  integrity  of 
purpose  which  the  message  claimed  for 
the  United  States  was  peculiarly  irritating. 
"We  have  tried  every  effort  at  conciliation. 
.  .  .  But  now,  after  reiterated  menaces, 
Mexico  has  passed  the  boundary  of  the 
United  States,  has  invaded  our  territory, 
and  shed  American  blood  upon  the  Ameri 
can  soil  ...  As  war  exists,  and,  notwith 
standing  all  our  efforts  to  avoid  it,  exists 
by  the  act  of  Mexico  herself,  we  are  called 
upon  by  every  consideration  of  duty  and 
patriotism  to  vindicate  with  decision  the 
honor,  the  rights,  and  the  interests  of  our 
country."  Such  assumption  of  national 
virtue  is  best  explained,  perhaps,  by  Folk's 
sincere  belief  in  the  righteousness  of  his 
course  —  a  belief  which  the  Whigs,  at  least, 
declined  to  share. 

On  the  13th  of  May  an  act  was  passed 
recognizing  the  existence  of  a  state  of  war, 
authorizing  the  employment  of  50,000  vol 
unteers,  and  appropriating  $10,000,000  for 
war  purposes.  The  vote  on  the  bill  in  the 
House,  174  to  14,  was  a  fair  indication  of 
public  opinion;  for  the  war,  in  spite  of 
Whig  opposition,  was  undoubtedly  pop 
ular,  save  in  New  England.  In  the  Senate 
the  vote  stood  40  to  2.  Taylor  had  already 
been  authorized  to  accept  the  services  of 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         109 

volunteers  from  Texas  and  the  Southwestern 
States,  and  had  called  on  the  governor  of 
Texas  for  two  regiments  of  infantry  and 
two  of  cavalry,  and  on  the  governor  of 
Louisiana,  Taylor's  own  State,  for  four 
regiments  of  infantry. 

Recent  excitement  over  Oregon  had  al 
ready  stimulated  the  war  fever.  In  his 
inaugural  address  Polk  had  taken  a  firm 
stand  in  favor  of  the  "clear  and  unques 
tionable"  claims  of  the  United  States.  In 
July,  1845,  Buchanan  renewed  the  offer  to 
compromise  on  the  line  of  49°,  but  without 
the  surrender  to  Great  Britain  of  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Columbia;  but  the  offer 
was  rejected  by  Pakenham,  the  British 
minister,  and  was  presently  withdrawn.  The 
popular  cries  of  "the  whole  of  Oregon  or 
none"  and  "fifty-four  forty  or  fight"  un 
doubtedly  strengthened  Polk's  decision  to 
demand  the  entire  region  up  to  54°  40', 
even  at  the  cost  of  war  with  Great  Britain; 
nor  was  he  deterred  by  the  approaching 
climax  of  the  Mexican  controversy.  In 
December  he  recommended  that  notice  be 
given  to  terminate  the  joint  occupation  of 
Oregon,  as  provided  by  the  convention  of 
1827,  and  urged  military  protection  for 
the  Oregon  trail.  Congress  and  the  country 
were  in  accord  with  the  President,  but  it 
was  not  until  May  21,  1846,  that  the  notice 
was  given. 


110    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Fortunately  for  the  peaceful  relations  of 
the  two  English-speaking  nations,  the  end 
of  the  Oregon  controversy  was  near.  On 
the  6th  of  June  Pakenham  presented  the 
draft  of  a  treaty  embodying  the  previous 
suggestions  of  the  line  of  49°  and  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Columbia  River.  Polk 
laid  the  treaty  before  the  Senate  without 
recommendation,  in  order  that  the  respon 
sibility  for  surrendering  territory  hitherto 
claimed  might  be  borne  by  that  body  rather 
than  by  him.  The  Senate,  by  a  vote  of 
37  to  12,  advised  acceptance,  and  on  June 
15  the  treaty  was  signed.  The  area  of  the 
acquisition  was  288,689  square  miles. 

Financial  readjustment  also  helped  to 
clear  the  way  for  a  successful  prosecution 
of  the  war  with  Mexico.  The  protective 
duties  imposed  by  the  tariff  of  1842  were 
not  in  harmony  with  Democratic  principles, 
and  were  sustained  only  by  the  need  of 
revenue  after  the  panic  of  1837.  By  1844, 
however,  prosperity  had  returned,  and  pro 
tection  could  again  be  made  an  issue.  The 
platform  declarations  of  1844,  indeed,  were 
far  from  explicit.  The  Democrats  declared 
that  the  government  ought  not  to  "foster 
one  branch  of  industry  to  the  detriment  of 
another,"  and  that  "no  more  revenue  ought 
to  be  raised  than  is  required  to  defray  the 
necessary  expenses  of  the  government." 
The  Whigs  framed  a  delphic  demand  for 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         111 

"a  tariff  for  revenue  to  defray  the  necessary 
expenses  of  the  government,  and  discrim 
inating  with  special  reference  to  the  protec 
tion  of  the  domestic  labor  of  the  country." 
Polk,  who  during  the  campaign  declared  in 
favor  of  "moderate  discriminating  duties" 
for  revenue  with  "reasonable  incidental 
protection,"  repeated  the  vague  declaration 
in  his  inaugural. 

In  his  annual  message  in  December, 
1845,  however,  Polk  argued  at  length  in 
favor  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  and  urged 
the  substitution  of  ad  valorem  for  specific 
duties.  The  Walker  Tariff  of  1846,  reducing 
duties  to  a  revenue  basis,  was  passed  by 
Congress  substantially  as  recommended  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  save  for  the 
rejection  of  proposed  duties  on  tea  and 
coffee.  Among  the  noteworthy  features  of 
the  act  were  the  grouping  of  dutiable  arti 
cles  in  classes,  or  schedules,  indicated  by 
letters,  and  the  establishment  of  bonded 
warehouses  for  the  storage  or  rehandling 
of  imported  goods.  The  Southern  and 
Western  States,  as  was  to  be  expected,  fur 
nished  the  majority  in  favor  of  the  bill. 

In  August,  1846,  the  subtreasury  system 
was  reestablished.  Since  the  repeal,  in 
1841,  of  the  subtreasury  act  of  the  previous 
year,  the  government  funds  had  been  de 
posited  in  State  banks.  Polk  condemned 
the  use  of  banks  for  this  purpose  in  his 


112    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

first  annual  message,  and  the  act  of  1846, 
passed  by  a  narrow  majority  in  the  Senate 
but  by  a  large  majority  in  the  House,  was 
practically  identical  with  the  act  of  1840. 
The  mints  at  Philadelphia  and  New  Orleans, 
and  suitable  places  at  Boston,  New  York, 
Charleston,  and  St.  Louis,  were  designated 
as  places  at  which  all  federal  officers  receiving 
public  money  should  make  deposits.  The 
divorce  from  banks  was  complete,  and  the 
subtreasury,  or  independent  treasury,  sys 
tem  is  still  in  force.  Advantage  was  taken 
of  the  passage  of  the  act  to  include  a  provi 
sion  requiring  all  payments  to  the  United 
States  to  be  made  in  gold  or  silver  coin  or 
in  treasury  notes. 

The  general  plan  of  military  operations, 
framed  apparently  by  Polk,  comprised  the 
occupation  of  New  Mexico  and  California, 
those  designations  then  including  the  present 
Arizona,  Utah,  Nevada,  and  the  western 
part  of  Colorado;  and  of  the  Mexican  State 
of  Chihuahua.  An  attack  upon  the  City 
of  Mexico  was  to  be  made,  not  for  the  pur 
pose  of  acquiring  territory  in  central  Mexico, 
but  to  prevent  the  recovery  of  the  northern 
provinces  and  compel  their  cession  to  the 
United  States. 

Immediately  upon  the  declaration  of 
war  General  Winfield  S.  Scott,  the  command 
ing  general  of  the  army,  was  assigred  to  the 
command  of  the  forces  against  Mexico. 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         113 

Scott  had  a  creditable  military  record,  but 
he  was  a  Whig  in  politics  and  out  of  sym 
pathy  with  Polk,  who  on  his  part  distrusted 
him.  He  was  presently  called  to  account 
for  delay  in  proceeding  to  Mexico,  and 
wrote  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War  in 
which  he  made  offensive  allusions  to  the 
President.  He  was  accordingly  relieved 
from  command  of  the  expedition  and  kept 
at  Washington,  and  the  command  of  the 
army  in  Mexico  intrusted  to  General  Taylor, 
who  was  also  a  Whig. 

The  chief  difficulty  in  conquering  New 
Mexico  and  California  lay  in  the  long  and 
arduous  transportation  of  troops  and  sup 
plies  across  what  was  then  the  "great 
American  desert,"  stretching  more  than  five 
hundred  miles  from  the  Missouri  River  to 
the  Rocky  Mountains.  In  July,  1846, 
General  Stephen  W.  Kearny  assembled  at 
Bent's  Fort,  where  the  Santa  Fe  trail 
crossed  the  Arkansas  River,  a  force  of  1800 
men,  most  of  them  undisciplined  volun 
teers.  On  the  18th  of  August  he  occupied 
Santa  Fe.  Here  he  set  up  a  temporary 
government,  and  in  September,  with  a  small 
body  of  dragoons,  set  out  for  California, 
arriving  at  San  Diego  in  December. 

California  had  already  been  conquered 
by  an  American  fleet,  the  commander  of 
which,  Commodore  John  D.  Sloat,  had  in 
June,  1845,  before  Texas  had  formally 


114    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

accepted  annexation,  been  directed  to  occupy 
San  Francisco  as  soon  as  he  learned  that 
Mexico  had  declared  war.  Sloat  was  dila 
tory,  but  on  July  7,  seven  weeks  after  he 
was  informed  of  the  first  fighting  on  the  Rio 
Grande,  he  seized  Monterey,  and  on  the 
9th  Captain  Montgomery  took  San  Fran 
cisco.  On  the  13th  of  August  Commodore 
R.  F.  Stockton,  who  had  succeeded  Sloat, 
took  Los  Angeles.  The  remaining  Mexican 
posts  in  California  fell  easily  into  American 
hands.  A  revolt  in  Los  Angeles  drove  the 
Americans  out  of  the  city,  but  it  was  re 
taken  after  a  succession  of  small  engage 
ments,  and  by  the  beginning  of  1847  Mexican 
resistance  was  at  an  end. 

In  the  North,  meantime,  a  movement  of 
a  different  sort  had  established  the  Bear 
Flag  Republic.  Captain  John  C.  Fremont, 
an  officer  of  engineers  and  a  son-in-law  of 
Senator  Benton,  had  already,  in  two  recent 
expeditions,  explored  the  country  between 
the  Missouri  and  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
and  entered  Oregon  and  California.  In 
March,  1846,  while  encamped  near  Monterey 
on  a  third  expedition,  he  had  refused  to 
obey  an  order  from  the  Mexican  authorities 
to  leave  the  country,  and  had  raised  the 
American  flag;  subsequently,  however,  he 
had  withdrawn  to  the  Oregon  border, 
whence  in  June  he  returned  to  the  Sacra 
mento  valley. 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO        115 

Following  a  report  that  a  Spanish  force 
was  on  the  way  to  attack  them,  a  body  of 
American  immigrants  north  of  San  Fran 
cisco  Bay  seized  the  fort  at  Sonoma,  and 
on  June  14  proclaimed  their  independence 
by  raising  an  improvised  Bear  Flag.  Al 
though  Fremont  was  not  directly  respon 
sible  for  the  movement,  he  was  quick  to 
take  advantage  of  it,  and  on  June  25  occu 
pied  Sonoma,  and  shortly  afterwards,  on 
hearing  of  the  capture  of  Monterey,  raised 
the  American  flag.  He  then  joined  Stock 
ton,  assisted  in  the  conquest  of  southern 
California,  and  in  August  was  appointed 
territorial  governor.  A  conflict  of  authority 
between  Stockton  and  Kearny  ensued, 
in  which  Fremont  sided  with  Stockton. 
For  his  conduct  he  was  court-martialed 
and  sentenced  to  dismissal  from  the  army. 
The  sentence  was  remitted  by  Polk,  but 
Fremont  resigned. 

The  invasion  of  northern  Mexico  was 
accomplished  by  a  detachment  of  850  men 
from  Kearny's  force  at  Santa  Fe,  under 
command  of  Colonel  A.  W.  Doniphan. 
The  expedition  started  in  December,  entered 
Mexico  by  way  of  El  Paso,  and  on  March 
1,  1847,  occupied  Chihuahua.  Another 
expedition  from  San  Antonio,  Texas,  under 
General  J.  E.  Wool,  had  entered  Mexico  in 
October,  but  failed  to  reach  Chihuahua  and 
had  turned  south  to  Monclova.  Kearny 


116     FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

remained  at  Chihuahua  until  the  end  of 
April,  and  then  joined  Taylor  at  Saltillo. 

Taylor,  meantime,  had  advanced  into 
Mexico.  On  May  8  he  defeated  the  Mexicans 
at  Palo  Alto,  and  again  on  the  next  day  at 
Resaca  de  la  Palma,  driving  them  across  the 
Rio  Grande.  In  September  he  fought  a 
successful  three  days'  battle  at  Monterey, 
occupied  Saltillo  November  16,  and  Vic 
toria  December  29.  On  February  23,  1847, 
he  was  attacked  at  Buena  Vista,  near  Sal 
tillo,  by  a  Mexican  army  of  more  than 
twenty  thousand  men  under  Santa  Anna. 
Although  outnumbered  three  to  one,  the 
Americans  inflicted  upon  Santa  Anna  an 
overwhelming  defeat,  and  forced  him  to 
give  his  attention  thereafter  to  the  defense 
of  the  City  of  Mexico. 

The  position  of  Santa  Anna  was  an  inter 
esting  illustration  of  the  politics  that  under 
lay  the  war.  In  consequence  of  a  revolu 
tion  in  December,  1844,  Santa  Anna  had 
been  expelled  from  Mexico  and  had  taken 
refuge  at  Havana.  He  had  a  strong  following 
in  Mexico,  and  since  his  rival  and  successor, 
Paredes,  was  pledged  to  the  reconquest  of 
Texas  and  to  war  with  the  United  States, 
Polk  had  decided  not  to  obstruct  Santa 
Anna's  return.  Orders  to  this  effect  were 
accordingly  issued,  in  May,  1846,  to  the 
commander  of  the  American  blockading 
fleet  in  the  Gulf.  In  August  another  revolu- 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         117 

tion  resulted  in  the  overthrow  and  expul 
sion  of  Paredes,  and  shortly  afterwards 
Santa  Anna  returned.  The  discovery, 
through  intercepted  dispatches,  of  the  plan 
to  concentrate  the  advance  upon  Mexico 
proper  led  him  to  attack  Taylor  at  Buena 
Vista,  but  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  the 
Mexicans  destroyed  the  last  hope  of  recover 
ing  New  Mexico  and  California. 

Polk  had  long  been  dissatisfied  with 
Taylor,  from  whom  he  complained  that  he 
received  neither  advice  nor  information. 
The  command  of  the  army  in  Mexico  was 
accordingly  given  to  Scott.  Scott  reached 
Matamoras  in  December,  1846.  On  the 
9th  of  March  he  effected  a  landing  near 
Vera  Cruz,  the  "Gibraltar  of  Mexico," 
and  on  the  29th,  with  the  aid  of  a  naval 
force  under  Commodore  David  Conner, 
took  the  city.  Two  of  the  world's  great 
commanders,  Ulysses  S.  Grant  and  Robert 
E.  Lee,  distinguished  themselves  on  this 
occasion,  the  former  as  lieutenant  and  the 
latter  as  captain. 

The  advance  upon  the  City  of  Mexico 
began  April  8.  In  all  respects  save  numbers 
and  situation  the  Americans  had  the  supe 
riority,  but  the  difficult  mountainous  coun 
try,  admirably  suited  for  defense,  together 
with  the  stubborn  resistance  of  the  Mexicans, 
made  the  task  of  conquest  arduous  in  the 
extreme.  At  Cerro  Gordo,  on  April  17  and 


118    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

18,  a  superior  Mexican  force  was  driven 
from  a  natural  fortress  only  by  hard  fight 
ing.  In  August  the  Americans  were  in  sight 
of  the  Mexican  capital,  strongly  fortified, 
and  accessible  only  by  a  road  built  across 
a  marsh  and  commanded  by  cannon. 

Scott,  unable  to  attack  in  front,  began 
the  construction  of  a  circuitous  road  over 
the  lava  beds.  On  August  19  and  20  he 
beat  back  the  enemy  at  Contreras  and  the 
convent  of  Churubusco.  An  armistice, 
proposed  by  Scott,  was  accepted  by  Santa 
Anna  August  24,  and  N.  P.  Trist,  formerly 
chief  clerk  of  the  State  Department,  who 
had  accompanied  the  army  as  special  en 
voy,  opened  negotiations  for  peace.  The 
negotiations  came  to  nothing  save  to  give 
Santa  Anna  time  to  strengthen  his  position, 
and  the  armistice  was  terminated.  On 
September  8  Scott  captured  the  cannon 
foundry  at  Molino  del  Rey,  and  five  days 
later  stormed  the  fortress  of  Chapultepec, 
commanding  the  city.  On  the  14th  the 
Americans  entered  the  city  and  hoisted  the 
American  flag  on  the  capitol  building. 

The  circumstances  attending  the  con 
clusion  of  peace  fairly  matched  those  under 
which  the  war  had  been  begun  and  carried 
on.  Trist  had  been  given  full  powers  to 
conclude  a  definitive  treaty  of  peace,  on  the 
basis  of  the  Rio  Grande,  from  its  mouth  to 
the  southern  boundary  of  New  Mexico, 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         119 

as  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries, 
the  cession  of  New  Mexico  and  California, 
and,  if  possible,  the  right  of  way  across  the 
isthmus  of  Tehuantepec.  The  proposals 
of  Mexico  during  the  armistice  were  entirely 
of  an  opposite  tenor,  but  Trist,  notwith 
standing  the  positive  nature  of  his  instruc 
tions,  hesitated,  and  finally  referred  the 
proposals  to  Washington. 

For  his  vacillating  course  Trist  was 
promptly  recalled.  The  letter  of  recall  did 
not  reach  him,  however,  until  November 
16,  by  which  time  the  City  of  Mexico  had 
fallen,  Santa  Anna  had  abdicated,  and  a 
new  government  had  been  installed.  When, 
therefore,  on  November  22,  the  new  govern 
ment  appointed  commissioners  to  negotiate 
on  the  basis  of  Trist's  original  instructions, 
he  took  advantage  of  the  fact  that  the 
Mexican  authorities  had  not  yet  received 
official  notification  of  his  recall,  and  assumed 
to  act  as  though  he  were  still  duly  accredited. 

On  February  2, 1848,  Trist  concluded  with 
Mexico  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo. 
The  boundary  between  the  two  countries 
was  fixed  in  the  Rio  Grande,  from  its  mouth 
to  the  southern  boundary  of  New  Mexico, 
thence  along  the  southern  and  western 
boundary  of  New  Mexico  to  the  Gila  River, 
down  the  Gila  to  the  Colorado  River,  down 
the  Colorado  to  the  boundary  between 
Upper  and  Lower  California,  and  thence 


120    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

west  to  the  Pacific.  In  consideration  of 
the  territory  thus  ceded,  the  United  States 
agreed  to  pay  Mexico  $15,000,000,  and  to 
assume  the  long-standing  American  claims 
to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $3,250,000. 
Polk  had  been  willing  to  pay  much  more 
than  the  treaty  called  for,  at  the  same  time 
that  he  had  steadily  resisted  pressure  to 
demand  more  territory  than  was  actually 
acquired. 

The  brilliant  success  with  which  Polk 
was  "conquering  a  peace"  had  not  blinded 
the  eyes  of  antislavery  members  of  Congress 
to  the  issue  involved  in  the  acquisition  of 
territory  from  Mexico.  On  the  8th  of 
August,  1846,  Polk,  after  consultation  with 
his  cabinet  and  several  members  of  Congress, 
had  sent  in  a  special  message  asking  for  an 
appropriation  of  money  to  aid  in  settling 
the  difficulties  with  Mexico.  What  he 
desired  was  a  sum  sufficient  to  make  a  first 
payment  for  territory  which  he  wished  to 
acquire,  and  which  it  was  believed  that  the 
Paredes  government,  in  need  of  money, 
would  be  willing  to  sell. 

A  bill  appropriating  two  million  dollars 
was  at  once  introduced  in  the  House.  There 
upon  a  Democratic  member  from  Pennsyl 
vania,  David  Wilmot,  offered  an  amendment 
which  read:  "Provided,  That,  as  an  express 
and  fundamental  condition  to  the  acqui 
sition  of  any  territory  from  the  Republic 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         121 

of  Mexico  by  the  United  States,  by  virtue 
of  any  treaty  which  may  be  negotiated 
between  them,  and  to  the  use  by  the  Execu 
tive  of  the  moneys  herein  appropriated, 
neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude 
shall  ever  exist  in  any  part  of  said  territory, 
except  for  crime,  whereof  the  party  shall 
first  be  duly  convicted."  The  amendment, 
drafted  by  Jacob  Brinkerhoff,  a  represen 
tative  from  Ohio,  but  known  as  the  "Wil- 
mot  Proviso,"  voiced  the  opposition  of 
Northern  Whigs  and  Democrats  to  slavery 
in  the  new  acquisitions. 

The  bill  with  the  amendment  passed  the 
House,  but  failed  in  the  Senate.  Polk 
repeated  his  request  in  December,  and  a 
two-million  bill,  with  a  revised  form  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  passed  the  House.  The 
Senate  substituted  three  millions  for  two 
and  struck  out  the  proviso;  and  in  this  form 
the  House  finally  accepted  it.  "The  debate 
in  the  two  houses  was  able  but  ominous. 
It  showed  clearly  in  all  their  mischievous 
effectiveness  the  influences  that  were  making 
for  sectionalization  and  threatening  to  dis 
solve  the  Union.  The  subterranean  cur 
rents  of  political  activity  became  manifest, 
and  gave  evidence  of  the  intense  factional 
and  sectional  animosity  engendered  by  the 
shelving  of  Van  Buren,  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  the  Oregon  compromise,  the  Walker 
tariff,  and  the  reestablishment  of  the 


122    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

independent  treasury  —  to  which  was  now 
added  the  fierce  hostility  between  North 
and  South  aroused  by  the  agitation  of  the 
slavery  question." * 

Polk  was  little  disposed  to  reject  so  ad 
vantageous  a  treaty  as  Trist  had  negotiated, 
and  on  February  22,  1848,  laid  it  before  the 
Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  it 
be  ratified,  save  for  the  tenth  article  relating 
to  public  lands  in  Texas.  The  Senate, 
March  10,  ratified  the  treaty  with  the  changes 
suggested,  and  in  this  form  it  was  accepted 
by  Mexico  and  the  final  ratifications  ex 
changed  in  May. 

Polk  had  declared  before  his  election  that 
he  would  not  be  a  candidate  for  a  second 
term;  and  although  the  Democrats  could 
not  but  approve  his  administration,  the  pro 
nounced  antislavery  opposition  left  him  no 
choice  save  to  reiterate  his  original  decla 
ration.  With  a  split  in  New  York,  where 
the  factions  known  as  "Hunkers"  and 
"Barnburners"  held  rival  conventions  and 
chose  rival  delegations,  the  Democratic 
convention  at  Baltimore  nominated  Lewis 
Cass  of  Michigan.  The  platform  praised 
the  war,  but  a  plank  affirming  the  doctrine 
of  non-interference  with  property  rights 
(in  slaves,  that  is)  in  the  States  and  Terri 
tories  was  rejected.  The  Whigs  nominated 
General  Taylor,  who,  after  the  appointment 
1  Garrison,  Westward  Extension,  263. 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO         123 

of  Scott  to  the  command  of  the  forces  des 
tined  for  the  City  of  Mexico  campaign,  had 
resigned  from  the  army  and  returned  to 
the  United  States.  No  platform  was  deemed 
necessary.  A  "Barnburner"  convention 
nominated  Van  Buren  on  a  platform  which 
declared  for  "free  soil,  free  speech,  free 
labor,  and  free  men." 

The  split  in  New  York,  joined  to  the 
separate  free  soil  candidacy  of  Van  Buren, 
cost  the  Democrats  the  election.  Taylor 
received  163  electoral  votes,  Cass  127. 
Polk  could  say  with  truth,  in  concluding  his 
last  annual  message  to  Congress,  that  his 
administration  had  "fallen  upon  eventful 
times."  Within  the  next  two  years  the 
momentous  consequences  of  his  work  were 
to  be  made  fully  apparent. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   COMPROMISE   OF    1850 

THE  renewed  struggle  between  the  North 
and  the  South  over  the  territorial  status  of 
slavery,  foreshadowed  by  the  prospect  of  a 
successful  war  with  Mexico,  centered  at 
first  about  Oregon.  The  rapidly  growing 
population  of  the  region  required  the  organi 
zation  of  a  territorial  government  as  soon 
as  possible  after  the  adjustment  of  the  boun 
dary  controversy  with  Great  Britain;  and 
it  was  certain  that  the  status  of  slavery  in 
the  Territory  would  determine  its  status 
in  the  State.  If  the  principle  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  with  the  consequent  admission 
of  States  in  pairs,  were  to  be  observed,  Ore 
gon  would  be  free,  and  the  South  would  be 
entitled  to  a  slave  State,  presumably  formed 
from  Texas  or  from  territory  acquired  from 
Mexico,  as  an  equitable  offset.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  that  principle  were  to  be  dis 
regarded,  another  obviously  fairer  to  both 
parties  must  be  found,  and  the  perpetual 
prohibition  of  slavery  north  of  36°  30' 
repealed.  The  growth  and  application  of 
the  new  doctrine  have  now  to  be  traced. 

124 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850 

Immediately  upon  the  conclusion  of  the 
boundary  treaty  Polk  urged  upon  Congress 
the  formation  of  a  territorial  government 
for  Oregon.  A  bill  for  that  purpose,  extend 
ing  to  the  people  of  the  Territory  the  privi 
leges  and  restrictions  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  passed  the  House  January  16,  1847. 
The  Ordinance,  which  forever  prohibited 
slavery  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States 
northwest  of  the  Ohio  River,  was  part  of 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  four  States  — 
Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Michigan  — 
formed  from  the  old  Northwest  Territory, 
as  well  as  of  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin; 
and  the  antislavery  provision  had  also  been 
applied  to  the  Territories  of  Minnesota  and 
Iowa. 

So  far  as  Oregon  was  concerned,  it  made 
no  difference  whether  slavery  were  excluded 
by  the  Ordinance  of  1787  or  by  the  Wilmot 
Proviso.  The  explicit  application  of  the 
ordinance,  however,  appealed  to  many  who 
were  willing  to  restrict  slavery  in  the  North 
but  unwilling  to  exclude  it  from  the  whole 
of  New  Mexico  and  California.  The  Senate 
twice  referred  the  bill  to  a  committee,  but 
finally  laid  it  on  the  table. 

On  January  10, 1848,  a  bill  to  organize  the 
Territory  of  Oregon  was  reported  in  the 
Senate  by  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  a  Democratic 
Senator  from  Illinois.  In  May  Polk  again 
called  attention  to  the  need  of  a  territorial 


126     FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

government.  To  an  amendment  extending 
to  the  new  Territory  the  prohibition  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1787  was  now  opposed  an 
amendment,  framed  by  Polk  himself,  ex 
tending  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to 
the  Pacific.  Meantime  peace  had  been  made 
with  Mexico,  an  area  more  than  twice  the 
size  of  Oregon  had  been  added  to  the  United 
States,  and  the  Free  Soil  campaign  was 
under  way.  The  question  of  slavery  in 
Oregon  was  now  merged  in  that  of  slavery 
in  New  Mexico  and  California. 

The  Senate  referred  the  matter  to  a 
select  committee,  of  which  Clayton  of 
Delaware  was  chairman,  which  reported 
on  July  18  a  bill  to  organize  the  three  Terri 
tories  of  Oregon,  California,  and  New 
Mexico.  Antislavery  laws  already  passed 
by  a  provisional  government  in  Oregon 
were  to  be  validated,  subject  to  the  later 
action  of  the  territorial  legislature;  but 
the  right  of  the  legislatures  of  New  Mexico 
and  California  to  legislate  regarding  slavery 
was  withheld.  Controversies  over  the  status 
of  slavery  in  either  Territory  might  be 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  The  latter  provision  enacted, 
in  the  expressive  language  of  Senator  "Tom" 
Corwin  of  Ohio,  "not  a  law,  but  a  lawsuit." 

On  the  morning  of  July  27,  after  an  all- 
night  session,  the  Clayton  compromise 
passed  the  Senate.  The  House,  by  a  vote 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850        127 

of  112  to  97,  laid  it  on  the  table,  and  on  the 
2d  of  August  passed  a  bill  for  the  organi 
zation  of  Oregon  alone,  with  the  antislavery 
provision  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  An 
amendment  in  the  Senate,  extending  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific, 
was  rejected  by  the  House;  the  Senate, 
mindful  of  the  recent  nomination  of  Van 
Buren  on  a  platform  calling  for  "free  soil, 
free  speech,  free  labor,  and  free  men," 
receded,  and  accepted  the  bill  as  framed  by 
the  House.  Polk  signed  the  bill,  explaining 
with  unction  that  he  did  so  because  he  found 
nothing  in  it  "inconsistent  with  the  laws  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  if  extended  from 
the  Rio  Grande  to  the  Pacific  Ocean." 

Before  Congress  met  in  December,  1848, 
the  country  was  going  wild  over  the  dis 
covery  of  gold  in  California.  Only  a  few 
days  before  the  signature  of  the  Treaty  of 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  a  workman  named 
Marshall,  employed  in  building  a  mill  some 
fifty  miles  from  Sutter's  Fort,  in  the  Sacra 
mento  valley,  found  in  the  gravel  yellow 
particles  which  proved  to  be  gold.  Before 
long  the  secret  was  known,  and  a  mad  rush 
for  the  gold  fields  began.  Immigrants 
poured  in  from  Oregon  and  all  parts  of  Cali 
fornia;  ordinary  business  was  abandoned; 
newspapers  suspended  publication  for  lack 
of  editors  and  compositors;  soldiers  and 
sailors  deserted.  Commodore  Jones  wrote 


128    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

in  October  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy: 
"The  commerce  of  this  coast  is  wholly  cut 
off.  No  sooner  does  a  ship  arrive  at  a  port 
of  California  than  captain,  mate,  cook,  and 
hands  all  desert  her."  Fabulous  reports 
were  spread  of  the  wealth  to  be  had  even  in 
a  single  day. 

From  the  East,  where  the  news  was 
received  in  November,  came  an  outpouring 
of  "Argonauts"  and  " Forty-niriers "  unpar 
alleled  in  modern  times.  "By  the  end  of 
March  270  ships  with  18,341  emigrants  had 
left  New  York  alone.  In  February,  1848, 
there  were  but  2000  Americans  in  all  Cali 
fornia;  in  December  there  were  6000. "* 
Some  went  by  way  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama; 
others  made  the  long  voyage  around  Cape 
Horn;  thousands  more  essayed  the  difficult 
and  dangerous  journey  across  the  plains. 
Even  Europe,  already  torn  by  the  revolu 
tions  of  1848,  felt  the  spell  of  gold,  and 
the  volume  of  immigration  rose  from  226,527 
in  1848  to  369,986  in  1850. 

Pending  the  extension  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  over  California,  there  was 
for  a  brief  time  demoralization  and  disorder. 
The  rush  of  gold-seekers  to  the  "diggings" 
and  to  San  Francisco  swept  along  with  it 
thieves,  gamblers,  criminals,  and  despera 
does  of  every  sort.  Moral  restraints  were 
removed,  vice  and  crime  multiplied,  and  the 

1  J.  B.  McMaster  in  Cambridge  Modern  History,  VII,  401., 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850       129 

fever  of  speculation,  joined  to  the  mad 
scramble  for  wealth,  brought  social  delirium. 
Only  for  a  few  months,  however,  did  law 
lessness  reign;  then  the  better  element 
asserted  itself,  desperadoes  were  hung,  shot, 
or  driven  out  of  the  country,  and  order  once 
more  prevailed.  The  effective  work  of  the 
"Vigilants"  has  not  to  this  day  ceased  to 
be  a  vivid  memory. 

It  was  observed  that,  of  the  thousands 
who  flocked  to  California  in  search  of  wealth, 
few  came  from  the  slave  States.  For  the 
Southern  planter  the  toilsome  journey  and 
rough  life  had  few  attractions.  In  spite  of 
the  loud  asseverations,  made  in  increasing 
volume  on  the  floors  of  the  House  and 
Senate,  about  the  inherent  goodness  of 
slavery,  the  institution  showed  itself  pecu 
liarly  sensitive  to  environment  and  averse 
to  transplantation.  Property  in  slaves  was 
too  precarious  to  risk  a  struggle  with  free 
labor;  and  in  a  community  which,  like  Cali 
fornia,  was  peopled  almost  exclusively  with 
men  who  worked  with  their  hands  and 
owned  no  master  save  themselves,  negro 
slavery  found  no  place. 

The  people  themselves  were  not  long  in 
declaring  their  attitude  towards  slavery. 
In  March,  1849,  following  the  recommenda 
tion  of  Polk,  Congress  extended  to  California 
the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  and 
established  a  collection  district  there.  In 


130    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

September  the  provisional  governor,  Gen 
eral  Riley,  called  a  constitutional  conven 
tion  at  Monterey,  which  in  October  adopted 
a  constitution  prohibiting  slavery.  In  No 
vember,  by  a  vote  of  12,061  to  811,  the  con 
stitution  was  ratified,  and  the  necessary 
steps  were  at  once  taken  to  secure  the 
admission  of  the  State.  Not  only  was  there 
definitive  and  irrevocable  opposition  to 
slavery  among  the  Californians,  but  the 
preliminary  discipline  of  a  territorial  organi 
zation  was  also  rejected.  Some  even  went 
so  far  as  to  intimate  that  California  must 
be  held  as  a  State  if  it  was  to  be  held  at  all. 
Congress  had  already  attempted  to  fore 
stall  the  free  State  movement,  but  the 
Northern  Democrats,  believing  that  the 
action  of  the  Southern  Democrats  had 
sacrificed  the  party  in  the  presidential  elec 
tion,  were  now  ready  to  join  with  the  anti- 
slavery  Whigs  in  opposing  slavery  in  the 
Territories.  In  the  short  session  of  1848- 
49  the  combined  free  soil  vote  passed  bills 
in  the  House  to  organize  the  Territories  of 
New  Mexico  and  California,  with  the  Wil- 
mot  Proviso.  When  the  Senate  refused 
consideration,  the  House  by  resolution  con 
demned  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.  Shortly  before  the  close  of  the 
session,  the  Senate  added  a  New  Mexico 
and  California  bill,  with  slavery,  as  a  "rider" 
to  one  of  the  general  appropriation  bills. 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF   1850       131 

The  House  substituted  an  amendment  con 
tinuing  in  force  in  the  region,  until  July 
4,  1850,  the  Mexican  laws,  which  prohibited 
slavery.  The  Senate  rejected  the  substi 
tute,  but  dropped  its  own  "rider"  also. 

In  the  Democratic  convention  of  1848 
William  L.  Yancey  of  Alabama  had  offered, 
as  an  additional  plank  in  the  platform,  a 
resolution  declaring  "that  the  doctrine  of 
non-interference  with  the  rights  of  property 
of  any  portion  of  the  people  of  this  confed 
eracy,  be  it  in  the  States  or  Territories 
thereof,  by  any  other  than  the  parties  inter 
ested  in  them,  is  the  true  republican  doctrine 
recognized  by  this  body."  By  the  over 
whelming  vote  of  36  to  216  the  resolution  was 
rejected,  but  it  was  observed  that  all  the 
affirmative  votes  came  from  the  slave  States. 
The  resolution  embodied,  in  cumbrous  phra 
seology,  the  new  doctrine  of  "popular  sover 
eignty,"  by  means  of  which  it  was  hoped 
that  slavery  might  be  extended  to  some  of 
the  new  Territories. 

The  enunciation  of  the  doctrine  of  popu 
lar  sovereignty  ushered  in  a  new  phase  of 
the  long-standing  slavery  controversy.  The 
Missouri  Compromise  restricted  the  forma 
tion  of  new  slave  States  to  the  region  south 
of  36°  30',  except  Missouri.  The  Wilmot 
Proviso,  by  attempting  to  exclude  slavery 
from  the  region  acquired  from  Mexico, 
virtually  affirmed  that  the  public  domain  was 


132    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

normally  free;  and  the  Free  Soil  party, 
drawing  its  supporters  from  both  Demo 
crats  and  Whigs,  took  its  stand  on  that 
principle.  Popular  sovereignty,  on  the 
other  hand,  rejected  the  idea  that  freedom, 
rather  than  slavery,  was  the  normal  status 
of  the  public  domain,  denied  the  right  of 
Congress  to  exclude  slavery  from  a  Terri 
tory,  and  claimed  for  the  people  of  each 
State  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves, 
when  admitted  to  the  Union,  what  their 
social  institutions  should  be.  The  defect 
in  the  argument,  from  the  Free  Soil  point 
of  view,  was  that  people  were  not  likely  to 
have  the  one  institution  as  a  Territory  and 
the  other  as  a  State;  so  that  the  establish 
ment  of  slavery  in  a  Territory,  the  social 
institutions  of  which  were  subject  to  regu 
lation  by  Congress,  would  almost  certainly 
result  in  the  continuance  of  the  same  insti 
tutions  by  the  State,  over  whose  policy  in 
such  matters  Congress  could  apparently 
have  no  control  whatever. 

The  first  session  of  the  Thirty-first  Con 
gress  convened  December  3,  1849.  The 
Senate  had  a  strong  Democratic  majority. 
In  the  House  nine  Free  Soilers  held  the 
balance  of  power  between  110  Democrats 
and  105  Whigs.  The  House  plunged  at 
once  into  a  speakership  contest.  The  prin 
cipal  candidates  were  Robert  C.  Winthrop 
of  Massachusetts,  a  WThig,  who  had  been 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF   1850       133 

Speaker  in  the  preceding  Congress,  and 
Howell  Cobb  of  Georgia,  a  Democrat.  Nei 
ther  could  command  the  support  of  the 
Free  Soilers.  After  62  ballots,  when  each 
of  the  two  candidates  had  97  votes,  it  was 
agreed  to  elect  by  a  plurality;  and  on  the 
next  ballot  Cobb  was  chosen.  On  January 
11  the  House,  embittered  by  the  struggle, 
completed  its  choice  of  officers  and  was 
ready  for  business. 

On  the  21st  of  January  President  Taylor 
informed  the  House,  and  two  days  later 
the  Senate,  of  the  reported  movement  for 
statehood  in  California,  and  of  the  likelihood 
that  similar  action  would  shortly  be  taken 
in  New  Mexico.  He  urged  that,  for  the 
avoidance  of  sectional  strife,  Congress  should 
accept  the  decision  of  the  people  of  Cali 
fornia  and  admit  the  State  with  the  consti 
tution  proposed.  With  regard  to  New 
Mexico,  however,  he  suggested  that  the 
organization  of  a  territorial  government 
might  properly  be  delayed  until  the  claim 
of  Texas  to  a  considerable  part  of  the  region 
had  been  adjusted. 

The  Senate  already  had  before  it  a  bill 
to  organize  the  Territories  of  California, 
Deseret  or  Utah,  and  New  Mexico.  On  Janu 
ary  29  Clay  submitted  a  series  of  resolu 
tions  intended  to  pave  the  way  for  compro 
mise.  He  proposed  that  California,  "with 
suitable  boundaries,"  be  admitted  as  a 


134    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

State  without  any  restriction  regarding 
slavery;  that  as  slavery  "does  not  exist 
by  law,  and  is  not  likely  to  be  introduced 
into  any  of  the  territory"  acquired  from 
Mexico,  a  territorial  government,  without 
restriction  for  or  against  slavery,  ought  to 
be  formed  in  so  much  of  the  region  as  was 
not  included  in  California;  that  the  boun 
dary  of  Texas  be  fixed  so  as  not  to  include 
any  part  of  New  Mexico,  Texas,  meantime, 
being  given  a  money  equivalent  for  the 
territory  relinquished;  that  the  slave  trade, 
but  not  slavery,  be  prohibited  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia;  and  that  a  more  stringent 
fugitive  slave  law  be  enacted. 

Debate  on  the  resolutions  began  Febru 
ary  5  and  continued  for  ten  weeks.  On  the 
13th  of  February  the  constitution  of  Cali 
fornia  was  laid  before  Congress.  April  18 
the  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  select 
committee,  of  which  Clay  was  chairman, 
which  reported  with  the  drafts  of  proposed 
bills  on  May  8.  The  committee  recom 
mended  the  admission  of  California;  the 
organization  of  territorial  governments  for 
New  Mexico  and  Utah,  without  the  Wilmot 
Proviso;  and  the  exclusion  of  Texas  from 
any  part  of  New  Mexico,  with  a  pecuniary 
equivalent.  All  of  these  measures  were  to 
be  incorporated  in  one  bill.  The  committee 
further  reported  a  bill  to  prohibit  the  slave 
trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  ap- 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF   1850       135 

proved  the  enactment  of  a  new  fugitive 
slave  law. 

Then  began  a  great  parliamentary  battle 
over  the  "Omnibus  Bill,"  as  the  first  meas 
ure  reported  by  the  committee  was  called. 
On  June  17  an  amendment  applying  to  Utah 
the  principle  of  "popular  sovereignty"  was 
agreed  to.  The  sudden  death  of  President 
Taylor  on  the  9th  of  July  devolved  the 
executive  office  upon  the  Vice-President, 
Millar d  Fillmore,  who  was  under  the  influ 
ence  of  Clay,  and  hence  more  inclined  than 
Taylor  to  favor  the  compromise.  On  the 
last  day  of  July  the  sections  of  the  bill 
relating  to  California,  New  Mexico,  and 
Texas  were  stricken  out,  and  the  next  day 
what  was  left  of  the  "Omnibus  Bill,"  now 
reduced  to  a  bill  to  organize  a  territorial 
government  for  Utah,  passed  the  Senate. 

The  threatening  attitude  of  Texas,  which 
was  making  preparations  to  assert  by  force 
its  claim  to  a  part  of  New  Mexico,  hastened 
the  conclusion  of  the  compromise.  Fillmore, 
while  declaring  that  peace  and  the  authority 
of  the  United  States  must  be  maintained, 
pointed  out  that  the  executive  had  no  author 
ity  to  settle  a  question  of  boundary.  On 
the  10th  of  August  the  Senate  passed  a  bill 
to  adjust  the  Texas  boundary,  following  it 
five  days  later  by  a  bill  organizing  the  Terri 
tory  of  New  Mexico.  The  House  insisted 
upon  joining  the  two  bills  in  one,  and  in  this 


136    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

the  Senate  concurred.  The  Utah  bill  be 
came  law  September  9,  and  on  the  same  day 
a  bill  to  admit  California  was  approved  by 
the  President.  The  passage  of  laws  for  the 
recovery  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  to  prohibit 
the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
completed  the  series  of  measures  which, 
collectively,  make  up  the  Compromise  of 
1850. 

The  essence  of  the  compromise,  so  far 
as  slavery  was  concerned,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  following  provision,  inserted  in  each 
of  the  two  territorial  acts:  "when  admitted 
as  a  State,  the  said  Territory,  or  any  portion 
of  the  same,  shall  be  received  into  the  Union, 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  constitu 
tion  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  their 
admission."  Taken  in  connection  with  the 
admission  of  California  as  a  free  State,  it  is 
clear  that  the  South  yielded  its  demand  for 
the  positive  establishment  of  slavery  in  a 
part  of  the  Mexican  acquisition,  and  con 
sented  to  its  prohibition  in  California;  while 
the  North  yielded  its  demand  for  the  uni 
versal  application  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso. 
As  for  the  Missouri  Compromise,  that  agree 
ment  remained  untouched.  For  the  rest, 
the  new  fugitive  slave  law  was  set  over 
against  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  na 
tional  capital  and  the  payment  of  $10,000,000 
to  Texas  in  compensation  for  the  loss  of  a 
part  of  New  Mexico. 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF   1850       137 

The  admission  of  California  destroyed  the 
sectional  balance  in  the  Senate,  which  had 
so  long  been  an  anxious  care.  Iowa  had 
been  admitted  in  1846,  Wisconsin  in  1848; 
and  of  the  thirty-one  States  now  in  the 
Union,  sixteen  were  free.  With  Oregon  des 
tined  for  freedom,  the  balance  could  be 
restored  only  by  insuring  the  establishment 
of  slavery  in  both  New  Mexico  and  Utah. 
The  population  of  the  former  was  chiefly 
Mexican  and  Indian,  and  most  of  the  area  of 
the  latter  was  believed  to  be  a  desert. 
Under  such  circumstances,  the  outlook  for 
the* 'peculiar  institution"  was  not  promising. 

The  great  speeches  on  the  compromise 
were  made  in  March,  while  Clay's  reso 
lutions  were  under  debate  in  the  Senate. 
On  the  4th  Calhoun,  dying  of  consumption 
and  too  weak  to  speak,  sat  in  his  seat  while 
his  speech  was  read  by  his  colleague,  Mason. 
His  words  were  a  "message  of  despair" 
and  a  prophecy  of  disunion.  In  his  opinion 
further  compromise  was  impossible,  and 
the  one  proposed  by  Clay  would  fail.  The 
North,  and  not  the  South,  was  the  aggressor; 
and  unless  the  North  ceased  its  attacks  upon 
slavery,  suppressed  the  demand  for  aboli 
tion,  and  gave  over  the  harboring  of  fugi 
tive  slaves,  the  South  would  be  compelled 
to  protect  itself  even  at  the  cost  of  war.  It 
was  his  last  message  to  the  American  people. 
Just  as  the  month  was  passing,  he  died. 


138    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Webster,  too,  prince  of  orators  and  con 
stitutional  lawyers,  made  on  the  7th  of 
March  his  last  great  speech.  With  some 
thing  of  the  old  massive  eloquence  he 
championed  the  compromise.  Believing  that 
slavery  was  excluded  from  New  Mexico 
by  natural  laws  of  soil  and  climate,  he  saw 
no  reason  for  excluding  it  by  statute.  "I 
would  not  take  pains  to  reaffirm  an  ordinance 
of  nature,  nor  to  reenact  the  will  of  God. 
And  I  would  put  in  no  Wilmot  Proviso, 
for  the  purpose  of  a  taunt  or  a  reproach. " 
The  South,  he  thought,  had  just  grievances 
against  the  North.  As  for  the  Abolitionists, 
"their  operations  for  the  last  twenty  years 
have  produced  nothing  good  or  valuable." 
The  threat  of  secession  he  heard  with  "pain, 
anguish,  and  distress,"  for  peaceable  seces 
sion  was  impossible. 

The  moderate  antislavery  sentiment  of 
the  North  was  eloquently  voiced  by  William 
H.  Seward  of  New  York.  Seward  declared 
himself  unalterably  opposed  to  compro 
mise,  believing  all  such  agreements  to  be 
"radically  wrong  and  essentially  vicious." 
He  denounced  the  principle  of  the  fugitive 
slave  law  as  "unjust,  unconstitutional,  and 
immoral,"  converting  hospitality  into  a 
crime.  The  Constitution  devotes  the  public 
domain  "to  union,  to  justice,  to  defense, 
to  welfare,  and  to  liberty.  But  there  is  a 
higher  law  than  the  Constitution,  which 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF   1850       139 

regulates  our  authority  over  the  domain, 
and  devotes  it  to  the  same  noble  purposes. 
.  .  .  The  simple,  bold,  and  even  awful 
question  which  presents  itself  to  us  is  this: 
Shall  we  who  are  founding  institutions, 
social  and  political,  for  countless  millions  — 
shall  we  who  know  by  experience  the  wise 
and  the  just,  and  are  free  to  choose  them, 
and  to  reject  the  erroneous  and  unjust  — 
shall  we  establish  human  bondage,  or  per 
mit  it  by  our  sufferance  to  be  established? 
Sir,  our  forefathers  would  not  have  hesitated 
an  hour." 

The  constitutionality  of  the  Compromise 
of  1850  presents  a  difficult  question.  In 
appealing  to  a  "higher  law"  than  the  Con 
stitution,  imposing  upon  Congress  the  obli 
gation  to  keep  the  Territories  free,  Seward 
not  only  espoused  the  cardinal  tenet  of  the 
Abolitionists,  but  also  championed  the  com 
mon  law  principle  laid  down  by  Lord  Mans 
field  in  the  Somerset  case.  On  the  other 
hand,  since  the  United  States  as  a  federal 
government  had  no  common  law,  and  thus 
far  had  not  interfered  with  slavery  in  the 
States,  there  was  force  in  the  argument  that 
"popular  sovereignty"  accorded  best  with 
American  practice.  No  State  had  aban 
doned  slavery  because  it  had  to,  none  now 
possessed  it  because  of  outside  compulsion. 
And  so  long  as  public  opinion  was  divided, 
no  strictly  constitutional  objection  could 


140    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

perhaps  be  made  to  a  policy  which  left  the 
people  of  the  Territories  to  settle  the  ques 
tion  for  themselves.  In  a  legal  sense  the 
Union,  considered  primarily  as  a  union  of 
States,  was  as  yet  neither  proslavery  nor 
antislavery. 

As  to  the  expediency  or  necessity  of  com 
promise,  opinion  then  and  since  has  differed 
widely.  Leaders  in  Congress  were,  on  the 
whole,  inclined  strongly  to  the  belief  that 
the  compromise  was  necessary  in  order  to 
save  the  Union,  but  not  all  agreed  with 
Webster  that  peaceable  secession  was  im 
possible.  Undoubtedly,  the  situation  in 
1850  was  grave;  some,  perhaps,  would  have 
welcomed  a  conflict  at  arms;  yet  the  clearer 
light  of  the  present  day  seems  to  indicate 
that  peaceable  separation  without  war  was 
the  calamity  most  to  be  feared  if  the  com 
promise  failed.  The  South  was  united,  the 
North  divided,  and  Fillmore  was  no  Jackson 
to  coerce  the  one  section  or  lead  the  other. 
From  the  European  standpoint,  the  area  of 
the  United  States  was  ample  for  the  forma 
tion  of  more  than  one  nation;  and  the  South 
had  obvious  unities  of  climate,  soil,  products, 
and  social  and  political  institutions  which 
the  North  had  not.  Nor  should  we  forget 
that  in  1861,  after  a  Southern  confederacy 
had  actually  been  formed  and  secession 
proclaimed,  no  steps  to  prevent  disruption 
were  taken  until,  having  failed  to  obtain 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF   1850      <141 

Fort  Sumter  by  negotiation,  Confederate 
batteries  compelled  its  surrender. 

So  grave  a  crisis  could  only  confront  a 
nation  whose  political  and  social  life  was 
in  unstable  equilibrium.  Ever  since  the 
War  of  1812  the  course  of  national  politics, 
in  spite  of  every  effort  to  the  contrary, 
had  made  for  sectionalization.  The  struggles 
over  protection,  banks,  and  the  subtreasury 
system;  nullification  in  South  Carolina; 
abolition  literature  and  antislavery  peti 
tions;  the  annexation  of  Texas;  Oregon 
and  the  Northern  boundary;  the  Mexican 
War  —  every  one  of  these  questions,  and 
the  careers  of  the  political  parties  which 
championed  or  opposed  them,  had  widened 
rather  than  healed  the  breach.  It  can  no 
longer  be  said,  as  it  has  commonly  been 
said,  that  slavery  was  the  root  of  section 
alism.  Recent  studies  of  State  and  local 
politics,  and  especially  of  economic  develop 
ment,  have  shown  how  uneven  and  sectional, 
quite  apart  from  slavery,  was  the  develop 
ment  of  agriculture,  commerce,  industry, 
and  political  thought  throughout  the  United 
States  prior  to  the  Civil  War.  Instead  of 
sectionalism  arising  because  of  slavery,  it 
would  be  truer  to  say  that  slavery  persisted 
because  of  sectionalism. 

But  there  inhered  in  slavery,  even  under 
the  best  conditions,  that  which  made  it  a 
divisive  and  not  a  uniting  force.  Slavery 


142   FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

separated  races,  repelled  free  labor,  dis 
couraged  manufactures  and  trade,  hindered 
the  development  of  agriculture,  fixed  an 
impassable  gulf  between  master  and  servant, 
stratified  society,  corrupted  morals,  and 
repressed  free  thought.  In  the  midst  of  the 
prodigious  industrial  progress  of  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  it  helped  by 
sheer  dead  weight  and  immobility  to  keep 
the  South  stationary.  And  when,  in  their 
efforts  to  control  the  nation  for  their  own 
self-interest,  those  whose  eyes  were  blinded 
were  joined,  as  they  were  after  1850,  by 
those  who  sinned  against  the  light,  the  strug 
gle  became  one  for  self-preservation.  If 
history  teaches  any  lesson  with  unspotted 
clearness,  it  is  that  in  such  a  struggle  no 
legislative  compromise,  however  skillfully 
contrived,  can  long  avail. 

Nevertheless,  for  the  moment  the  com 
promise  appeared  to  have  achieved  its  pur 
pose.  To  keep  the  question  of  slavery  out 
of  politics,  and  at  the  same  time  adjust  the 
opposing  interests  of  the  sections,  had  been 
the  aim  of  the  Democrats;  and  in  that 
aim  the  party  had  apparently  once  more 
succeeded.  Senators  and  Representatives 
affirmed  again  and  again  that  the  Compro 
mise  of  1850  was  a  "finality."  Fillmore, 
in  his  annual  message  of  December,  1850, 
declared  that  "we  have  been  rescued  from 
the  wide  and  boundless  agitation  that  sur- 


THE  COMPROMISE  OF   1850       143 

rounded  us,  and  have  a  firm,  distinct, 
and  legal  [ground  to  rest  upon."  Douglas 
thought  that  it  would  not  again  be  necessary 
for  him  to  make  a  speech  on  the  subject  of 
slavery. 

Upon  Webster,  however,  fell  the  weight 
of  New  England's  condemnation.  Webster 
had  never  sympathized  with  the  abolition 
movement,  nor  was  he  a  friend  to  slavery. 
So  far  as  his  public  record  went,  he  had 
stood  with  those  who  sought,  by  consti 
tutional  means,  to  restrict  the  growth  of 
slavery.  But  his  advocacy  of  the  compro 
mise,  in  his  7th  of  March  speech,  called  down 
upon  him  from  the  Abolitionists  the  charge 
of  apostasy;  and  the  iron  entered  into  his 
soul. 

"  VvTien  faith  is  lost,  when  honor  dies, 

The  man  is  dead! 
Then,  pay  the  reverence  of  old  days 

To  his  dead  fame; 
Walk  backward,  with  averted  gaze, 
And  hide  the  shame!  " 

So  sang  the  poet  Whittier  of  "Ichabod," 
the  repudiated  statesman  of  Massachusetts. 
In  the  face  of  such  a  charge,  unjust,  indeed, 
but  invited,  the  formal  testimonials  of  sup 
porters  and  friends  were  but  a  feeble  solace. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   UNITED    STATES    IN   THE   EARLY    FIFTIES 

THE  nation  which  for  the  moment  sought 
to  accept  the  Compromise  of  1850  as  a 
"finality"  was,  in  many  important  respects, 
quite  different  from  what  which,  thirty 
years  before,  had  struggled  to  achieve  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  Heated  discussion 
of  slavery,  foreign  war,  and  the  scope  of  the 
Constitution  had  not  prevented  or  even 
checked  the  growth  in  industry  and  popula 
tion  which  throughout  the  nineteenth  cen 
tury  made  the  United  States  a  wonder 
among  nations.  If  political  quiet  and  sta 
bility  are,  as  has  so  often  been  said,  the  con 
ditions  most  favorable  to  economic  prosper 
ity,  the  United  States  stood  for  more  than 
fifty  years  a  notable  exception  to  the  rule. 

In  1853,  by  the  "Gadsden  purchase," 
the  United  States  acquired  from  Mexico 
an  additional  area  of  about  36,000  square 
miles.  With  this  addition  —  the  last,  except 
Alaska,  that  has  been  made  to  the  conti 
nental  limits  of  the  United  States  —  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  federal  government  ex- 

144 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          145 

tended  over  an  area  about  three  and  one- 
half  times  that  of  the  original  area  in  1783. 
The  wide  variety  of  soil,  climate  and  natural 
resource,  joined  to  undisputed  access  to  the 
Atlantic,  the  Pacific,  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
made  possible  the  growth  of  a  varied  agricul 
ture,  manufacture,  and  commerce;  while  the 
sterile  character  of  much  of  the  Mexican 
acquisitions  was  more  than  offset  by  the 
extraordinary  mineral  wealth  of  California. 

The  population,  which  reached  12,800,000 
in  1830,  grew  to  17,000,000  in  1840  and  to 
23,000,000  in  1850;  in  1860  it  had  become 
31,400,000.  The  primacy  of  New  York, 
with  over  3,000,000  inhabitants,  had  been 
undisputed  since  1820;  but  Pennsylvania 
had  2,300,000,  Ohio  nearly  2,000,000,  Vir 
ginia  1,400,000,  and  Tennesseeover  1,000,000, 
while  Georgia,  Indiana,  Massachusetts,  and 
Kentucky  were  near  the  million  mark.  Cali 
fornia  returned  over  92,000  in  1850,  and  was 
to  show  in  1860  an  unparalleled  increase  to 
379,000;  in  addition,  New  Mexico  in  1850 
had  61,000,  and  Utah  11,000.  Oregon,  over 
whose  possession  the  United  States  had 
nearly  gone  to  war,  had  13,000  population 
in  1850,  while  the  new  States  of  Iowa  and 
Wisconsin  showed  192,000  and  305,000 
respectively. 

The  comparative  growth  of  population 
in  the  free  States  and  slave  States  showed, 
however,  rapidly  increasing  divergence.  A 


146    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

free  State  population  of  5,100,000  in  1820 
became,  in  1850,  13,500,000  and  in  1860 
19,100,000.  A  slave  State  population,  on 
the  other  hand,  of  4,400,000  in  1820  became 
only  9,600,000  in  1850  and  12,300,000  in 
1880.  The  greatest  gains  were  made  in  the 
"cotton  belt"  and  in  the  border  States  of 
Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Arkansas;  in 
the  Atlantic  coast  States  the  growth  was 
much  less  marked.  As  the  census  enumera 
tion  included  negroes  as  well  as  whites,  and 
as  the  average  annual  importations  of  Afri 
cans,  from  1820  to  1860,  probably  did  not 
fall  below  5000,  it  was  evident  that  the 
white  population  of  the  South  was  steadily 
losing  ground. 

A  factor  of  increasing  importance  to  the 
North  was  the  swelling  volume  of  foreign 
immigration.  From  1845,  when  the  figures 
reached  114,000,  immigration  grew  rapidly, 
with  unimportant  fluctuations,  until  1854, 
when  over  427,000  aliens  entered  the  country. 
After  that  there  was  a  rapid  decline  until 
1861,  the  aggregate  for  1854  not  being 
reached  again  until  1873.  Altogether,  over 
4,000,000  immigrants  arrived  between  1845 
and  1860.  While  the  proportion  of  the 
undesirable  classes  was  large,  far  the  greater 
number  represented  the  sturdy  middle  and 
lower  classes  of  northern  Europe  and  the 
British  Isles.  Practically  none  went  to  the 
South,  but  nearly  all  settled  down  in  the 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          147 

manufacturing  towns  of  the  East,  or  went 
westward  to  establish  themselves  as  farm 
ers,  or  pressed  on  to  California  to  work  in 
the  mines. 

After  1830  the  change  from  rural  to  urban 
life  went  on  rapidly.  The  number  of  towns 
and  cities  with  a  population  of  8000  or  over 
rose  from  44  in  1840  to  141  in  1860.  The 
strongest  factor  in  this  urban  growth  was, 
of  course,  the  development  of  manufactures 
and  commerce,  in  both  of  which  directions 
the  North  was  once  more  at  an  advantage. 
The  South  did  not  accumulate  the  capital 
necessary  for  the  establishment  of  factories 
or  the  construction  of  railroads;  on  the 
contrary,  its  relative  wealth  steadily  de 
clined,  and  it  has  been  estimated  that  by 
1860  few  of  the  larger  plantations  were  self- 
supporting.  The  proceeds  of  staple  crops, 
after  the  necessary  expenditures  for  food, 
manufactured  goods,  and  more  slaves,  quite 
as  often  netted  a  deficit  as  a  surplus.  A  few 
Southern  mills  spun  yarn  or  wove  coarse 
fabrics,  but  only  about  seven  per  cent  of 
the  spindles  in  the  United  States  in  1850 
were  found  in  the  South.  Neither  the  coal 
nor  the  iron  deposits  of  the  South  underwent 
any  considerable  development  before  the 
Civil  War. 

The  growth  of  population,  especially  in 
the  West,  necessitated  better  facilities  for 
transportation  than  were  afforded  by  turn- 


148    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

pikes  and  canals.  By  1850  the  rapid  exten 
sion  of  railways  had  connected  Boston  and 
New  York  with  the  Great  Lakes  and  Chicago, 
Philadelphia  with  Pittsburg  on  the  Ohio, 
and  Baltimore  with  Wheeling  on  the  Cum 
berland.  New  England  had  a  network  of 
local  lines.  In  the  West  liberal  grants  of 
land  by  the  States  were  made  in  aid  of 
railroads,  and  were  supplemented  by  simi 
lar  grants  from  Congress.  In  the  Atlantic 
coast  States,  where  there  were  no  public 
lands,  subscriptions  of  stock  in  considerable 
amounts  were  made  by  the  States.  As  yet, 
however,  lines  were  short,  differences  of 
gauge  caused  frequent  changes  for  passen 
gers  and  freight,  and  dividends  were  possi 
ble  only  in  thickly  populated  sections.  With 
the  railroad,  and  frequently  in  advance  of 
it,  went  the  telegraph,  which  in  1848  reached 
Milwaukee  and  New  Orleans. 

Outside  of  New  England,  however,  it 
was  only  the  larger  communities  that,  prior 
to  1860,  were  served  by  railroads.  In  country 
districts,  and  in  the  great  West  beyond  the 
railway  termini,  the  traveler  must  still 
resort  to  the  stagecoach  or  private  convey 
ance.  Beyond  the  western  boundary  of 
Missouri  mails  for  the  Pacific  coast  were 
carried,  from  1852  to  1860,  by  the  daring 
riders  of  the  Pony  Express.  The  journey  by 
stage  from  St.  Louis  to  California  could  be 
made,  in  1858,  in  about  four  weeks.  Even 


INJTHE  EARLY  FIFTIES          149 

in  New  England  the  remoter  towns  of  Maine, 
New  Hampshire,  and  Vermont  depended 
upon  stage  lines  for  their  communication 
with  the  outside  world.  It  was  the  policy 
of  the  federal  government  to  carry  the 
mails  wherever  there  was  an  appreciable 
settlement,  the  larger  offices  paying  in  part 
for  the  smaller.  The  number  of  post-offices 
increased  from  3000  in  1815  to  28,000  in 
1860,  the  mileage  of  the  routes  from  43,000 
to  240,000,  and  the  receipts  from  $1,000,000 
to  $8,500,000. 

The  gain  in  wealth  and  financial  stability 
was  strikingly  shown  in  the  financial  man 
agement  of  the  Mexican  War.  The  war 
added  less  than  $50,000,000  to  the  national 
debt.  Loans  were  made  in  specie,  at  par  or 
over,  and  in  one  notable  case  the  loan  was 
more  than  three  times  over-subscribed. 
The  California  mines,  by  adding  enormously 
to  the  stock  of  gold  in  the  country,  aided 
the  negotiation  of  specie  loans  and  assured 
the  maintenance  of  specie  payment  by  the 
government.  The  rapid  growth  of  com 
merce,  particularly  with  England,  and  of 
trade  with  the  West,  swelled  the  customs 
receipts,  while  the  expanding  immigration 
stimulated  the  sales  of  public  lands.  By 
1857  the  public  debt,  which  amounted  six 
years  before  to  over  $68,000,000,  had  been 
reduced  to  $28,000,000.  The  weak  spot  in 
the  financial  situation  was  the  State  banks, 


150    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

whose  note  issues,  often  subject  to  no  effi 
cient  regulation  by  law,  formed  a  currency 
of  unstable  value. 

For  ten  years  after  the  enactment  of  the 
Walker  Tariff,  in  1846,  American  politics 
was  largely  free  from  tariff  discussion.  By 
1857,  however,  the  reduction  of  the  debt, 
together  with  the  continuance  of  large  im 
portations,  made  it  necessary  to  deal  with 
the  surplus.  In  March,  accordingly,  the 
rates  were  materially  lowered,  except  on 
cotton,  and  considerable  additions  made 
to  the  free  list.  In  August  a  disastrous 
commercial  panic  swept  over  the  country; 
merchants  and  bankers  failed,  railroads 
went  bankrupt,  and  specie  payment  was 
suspended.  While  the  advocates  of  higher 
duties  ascribed  the  panic  primarily  to  the 
tariff  changes,  the  larger  cause  was  to  be 
found,  as  usual,  in  a  decade  of  remarkable 
industrial  development,  excessive  railroad 
building,  unsound  banking,  and  speculation. 

The  next  few  years  proved  to  be  a  period 
of  difficulty  and  uncertainty  for  the  treasury. 
In  the  meantime  the  new  Republican  party, 
which  took  the  field  for  the  first  time  in 
the  presidential  election  of  1856,  made  pro 
tection  one  of  its  chief  tenets;  and  its  suc 
cess  in  the  election  of  1860  was  followed,  in 
March,  1861,  by  the  enactment  of  the  Morrill 
Tariff  with  low  but  moderately  protective 
duties. 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          151 

Neither  devotion  to  industry,  agriculture, 
and  commerce,  however,  nor  insistence  upon 
the  "finality"  of  compromise,  could  long 
banish  the  slavery  issue  from  the  public 
mind.  The  first  year  of  Fillmore's  adminis 
tration  had  not  ended  when  the  attempted 
enforcement  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  tore 
open  afresh  a  wound  which  many  a  politi 
cal  leader  had  declared  was  forever  healed. 

The  Act  of  1850  authorized  the  owner  of 
a  fugitive  slave,  or  his  agent,  to  cause  the 
arrest  of  the  fugitive  in  any  State  whither 
he  might  have  fled,  and  to  obtain  a  summary 
hearing  of  the  case  before  a  circuit  or  dis 
trict  court  of  the  United  States,  or  before 
one  of  the  federal  commissioners  especially 
appointed  to  aid  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
act.  Legal  proofs  of  ownership  were  re 
quired  to  be  submitted,  but  the  fugitive 
was  prohibited  from  testifying  in  his  own 
behalf.  If  the  court  or  commissioner  ad 
judged  the  fugitive  to  be  the  property  of 
the  claimant,  he  was  to  be  delivered  to  the 
owner  or  agent,  and  federal  marshals  and 
their  deputies  were  required  to  use  all 
necessary  means  to  insure  the  safe  return 
of  the  fugitive  to  the  State  from  which  he 
had  fled,  and  were  made  liable  in  heavy 
penalties  if  he  escaped  or  was  rescued.  In 
the  performance  of  their  duties  under  the 
act,  marshals  were  authorized  to  require 
the  aid  of  bystanders  or  of  the  posse  comi- 


152    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

talus  of  the  county.  Any  one  who  attempted 
to  prevent  the  return  of  a  fugitive  slave,  or 
aided  him  to  escape,  was  to  be  fined  a  thou 
sand  dollars,  and  mulcted  a  similar  amount  in 
damages  to  the  injured  owner  or  claimant. 

Fillmore  was  advised  by  Webster,  his 
Secretary  of  State,  and  Crittenden,  his 
Attorney-General,  that  the  proposed  act 
was  constitutional,  and  signed  the  bill;  but 
there  were  serious  objections  to  the  act  on 
other  grounds  than  those  of  constitution 
ality.  The  appearance  of  slave  hunters  in 
the  North  would  be  certain  to  arouse  all 
the  slumbering  hostility  of  the  free  States 
to  slavery;  while  the  summary  character 
of  the  proceedings,  and  the  denial  to  the 
alleged  fugitive  of  the  right  to  testify  in 
his  own  behalf,  not  only  reversed  the  time- 
honored  legal  presumption  of  innocence, 
but  made  it  difficult  even  for  free  negroes 
to  protect  themselves.  Moreover,  while 
the  act  was  intended  to  protect  the  slave 
owner  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  property, 
fugitive  slaves  in  fact  came  chiefly  from  the 
Border  States,  where  the  relative  number  of 
slaves  was  least. 

How  serious  the  situation  was  with  which 
this  drastic  statute  was  designed  to  cope 
was  variously  estimated.  The  census  of 
1850  reported  the  number  of  slaves  who 
escaped  to  the  free  States  in  that  year  as 
1011;  in  1860  the  number  was  803,  or  one- 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          153 

thirtieth  of  one  per  cent  of  the  total  slave 
population.  The  most  liberal  estimate,  on 
the  basis  of  these  figures,  would  make  the 
annual  number  of  fugitives  from  1840  to 
1850  not  greater  than  the  number  reported 
for  the  latter  year;  a  maximum  of  10,000 
for  the  decade  preceding  the  enactment  of 
the  law.  It  may  well  be  doubted  if  more 
than  half  of  that  number  actually  escaped. 
Yet  Clingman,  a  member  of  Congress  from 
North  Carolina,  estimated  the  number  of 
fugitives  in  the  North  at  30,000,  and  their 
value  at  $15,000,000!  In  neither  estimate 
is  any  account  taken  of  the  number  of 
fugitives  captured  and  returned.1 

Already,  before  the  Compromise  of  1850, 
a  number  of  Northern  States  had  taken 
steps  to  protect  fugitive  slaves  who  might 
come  within  their  jurisdiction;  and  such 
legislation  greatly  increased  after  1850.  In 
New  England,  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
and  other  States,  "personal  liberty  laws" 
gave  to  fugitives  the  benefits  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  or  forbade  a  claimant  to 
testify  save  in  writing,  or  prohibited  the  use 
of  prisons  and  jails  for  the  detention  of 
accused  negroes.  In  Boston  and  elsewhere 
committees  of  prominent  citizens  were  formed 
to  give  notice  of  the  arrival  of  a  slave  hunter, 
provide  counsel  for  the  fugitive,  and  make 
possible  his  escape.  No  State  was,  indeed, 

1  Rhodes,  United  States,  I,  378,  note  3. 


154    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

bound  to  enforce  a  federal  statute,  but  it  was 
bound  not  to  obstruct  the  enforcement.  The 
intense  and  widespread  opposition  to  the 
law,  however,  overrode  constitutional  re 
straints  and  put  large  sections  of  the  North 
for  the  time  being  in  open  hostility  to  the 
federal  government.  The  attempted  nulli 
fication  of  the  tariffs  of  1828  and  1832  by 
South  Carolina  was  now  matched  by  the 
attempted  nullification  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law  of  1850  by  almost  the  entire  North. 

The  enforcement  of  the  act  was  not  long 
delayed.1  On  the  15th  of  February,  1851, 
a  negro  named  Shadrach  was  arrested  in 
Boston,  charged  with  being  a  fugitive  slave. 
The  federal  commissioner,  George  Ticknor 
Curtis,  adjourned  the  case  to  the  next  day 
in  order  that  the  accused  might  obtain 
counsel.  A  mob  of  negroes  stormed  the 
court-house  in  which  Shadrach  was  confined 
and  rescued  the  prisoner,  who  eventually 
made  good  his  escape  to  Canada.  President 
Fillmore  at  once  issued  a  proclamation  con 
demning  the  lawless  proceedings  and  direct 
ing  the  prosecution  of  the  offenders;  but 
although  five  persons  were  indicted  and 
tried,  a  disagreement  of  the  jury  prevented 
conviction. 

On  the  3d  of  April  a  second  fugitive, 
named  Sims,  was  apprehended  in  Boston. 

1  For  details  of  the  cases  cited  here  and  later,  see  Rhodes, 
United  States,  I,  208  et  seq. 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          155 

This  time  the  court-house  was  protected 
by  heavy  chains  and  strongly  guarded. 
Sims  was  found  guilty,  and  with  the  aid  of 
three  hundred  policemen  and  a  regiment  of 
militia,  and  to  the  accompaniment  of  tolling 
church  bells,  was  placed  on  board  a  vessel 
to  be  returned  to  Georgia. 

At  Christiana,  Pennsylvania,  a  slave 
holder  named  Gorsuch,  who  with  a  party 
was  searching  for  two  fugitives  from  Mary 
land,  precipitated  a  general  fight  with  a  body 
of  negroes  and  others,  in  which  Gorsuch  was 
killed  and  his  son  wounded.  A  Quaker, 
Hanaway,  who  had  refused  to  aid  the  mar 
shal  accompanying  Gorsuch,  was  tried  and 
acquitted.  At  Syracuse,  New  York,  an 
alleged  fugitive  named  Jerry  McHenry  was 
rescued  from  the  police  station  by  a  party 
of  men  led  by  Samuel  J.  May,  a  Unitarian 
minister,  and  Gerritt  Smith,  an  abolitionist 
and  member  of  Congress,  and  aided  to 
escape  to  Canada.  May  and  Smith  issued 
a  statement  telling  of  their  part  in  the  affair, 
but  the  United  States  district  attorney  was 
afraid  to  try  them;  and  of  eighteen  others 
indicted,  none  were  convicted. 

At  the  close  of  his  annual  message  in 
December,  1851,  Fillmore  again  insisted 
upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law,  pointed  out  that  the  law  was 
necessary  in  order  to  give  effect  to  the  pro 
vision  of  the  Constitution  regarding  fugi- 


156    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

tive  slaves,  and  declared  that  the  opposition 
was  directed,  not  against  the  act,  but 
against  the  Constitution  itself.  "It  is  not 
to  be  disguised  that  a  spirit  exists,  and  has 
been  actively  at  work,  to  rend  asunder  this 
Union."  Fillmore  was  hardly  a  man  to 
give  weight  to  moral  issues  in  politics:  the 
letter  of  the  law,  duly  enacted  according 
to  the  approved  procedure,  was  enough 
for  him.  That  an  aroused  public  opinion, 
usually  in  advance  of  the  prescriptions  of  the 
statute  book,  could  openly  repudiate  and 
publicly  nullify  a  law  whose  constitutional 
ity  most  lawyers  felt  bound  to  affirm,  was 
to  him  inconceivable.  Doubtless  the  situa 
tion  was  exceedingly  difficult,  legally,  politi 
cally,  and  morally,  but  it  was  not  given  to 
Fillmore  to  lead  the  people  in  this  time  of 
crisis. 

The  publication  in  March,  1852,  of  Har 
riet  Beecher  Stowe's  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin" 
was  like  adding  oil  to  the  fire.  Mrs.  Stowe 
had  little  personal  contact  with  slavery, 
although  she  knew  well  the  literature  of  the 
subject;  and  she  undoubtedly  emphasized 
the  dreadful  incidents  of  the  system  rather 
than  its  general  characteristics.  But  the 
tragic  and  pathetic  story  of  devotion,  suff 
ering,  death,  and  escape,  written  under  the 
campus  trees  of  Bowdoin  College  by  a  poor 
and  unknown  woman,  touched  the  heart  of 
the  American  people;  and  while  the  South 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          157 

denounced  the  book  as  a  gross  and  vicious 
libel,  the  men  and  women  of  the  North  who 
wept  over  it  were  becoming  thereby  more 
inflexible  opponents  of  the  hateful  system. 
The  novel  was  easily  one  of  the  most  suc 
cessful  ever  written,  and  to  unprecedented 
sales  in  this  country  and  in  England  were 
presently  added  large  sales  of  translations 
into  German,  French,  and  other  languages. 

The  enforcement  of  the  law  of  1850, 
together  with  the  new  interest  aroused  by 
"Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,"  stirred  to  increased 
activity  the  work  of  the  "Underground 
Railway."  Throughout  the  North,  but 
especially  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  States 
bordering  on  the  Ohio  River,  were  many 
earnest  antislavery  men  and  women  ready 
to  help  the  escape  of  fugitive  slaves.  Work 
ing  in  secrecy,  and  adopting  the  terminology 
of  a  railroad  the  better  to  conceal  their 
operations,  there  shortly  came  to  be  some 
thing  like  a  system  of  "stations,"  "trunk 
lines,"  "junctions,"  etc.,  for  caring  for 
fugitives  and  convoying  them  to  Canada. 
Any  slave  who  could  succeed  in  crossing 
the  Ohio  was  pretty  certain  of  finding  food, 
clothing,  shelter,  protection,  and  guidance 
from  "conductors"  and  "agents."  Members 
of  the  Society  of  Friends,  long  consistent 
enemies  of  slavery,  were  especially  promi 
nent  in  the  movement,  while  the  hazard 
of  the  work,  as  well  as  its  humanitarian 


158    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

purpose,  added  to  its  fascination.  The 
aggregate  results,  of  course,  were  small, 
but  the  willingness  of  otherwise  law-abiding 
citizens  to  set  a  federal  law  at  defiance, 
joined  to  the  "personal  liberty  laws"  of 
Northern  legislatures,  showed  again  how 
thoroughly  the  moral  revolt  was  spreading. 
Men  who  gladly  risked  their  freedom  and 
their  lives  for  the  freedom  and  lives  of  others 
were  not  to  be  deceived  by  talk  about  the 
constitutionality  or  finality  of  compromise. 

In  spite,  however,  of  the  activity  of  the 
"Underground  Railway,"  and  of  the  chag 
rin  and  horror  which  every  forcible  return 
of  a  fugitive  aroused,  it  became  clear  that, 
throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  North, 
the  antislavery  agitation  was  quieting  down. 
Webster,  though  humiliated  at  the  charge 
of  apostasy,  continued  to  urge  acceptance 
of  the  compromise  until  his  death,  in  1852. 
Everywhere  was  observable  a  strenuous 
effort  to  regard  the  controversy  as  settled. 
The  large  Democratic  majority  in  both 
houses  of  Congress,  in  1851-53,  was  an  unmis 
takable  evidence  of  popular  satisfaction, 
since  the  elections  had  taken  place  in  the 
fall  of  1850,  when  the  debates  over  the 
compromise  were  fresh  in  mind.  Both 
the  President  and  Congress  were  in  accord, 
the  slavery  question  was  kept  as  much  as 
possible  out  of  debate,  and  Fillmore's  recom 
mendations  were,  in  general,  approved. 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          159 

When,  accordingly,  in  June,  1852,  the 
Democrats  met  in  national  convention  at 
Baltimore,  the  outlook  was  bright.  The 
split  in  the  party,  which  had  cost  them  the 
election  of  1848,  was  now  healed.  The 
leading  presidential  candidate  was  Cass, 
who  had  headed  the  ticket  in  the  previous 
campaign;  but  Buchanan,  Douglas,  and 
Marcy  had  each  a  strong  following.  Neither 
of  these  candidates,  however,  proved  able 
to  command  the  necessary  two-thirds  vote, 
and  on  the  forty-ninth  ballot  a  "dark 
horse,"  Franklin  Pierce  of  New  Hampshire, 
was  nominated.  The  vice-presidential  nomi 
nation  was  given  to  William  R.  King  of 
Alabama.  The  platform,  adopted  after 
the  candidates  had  been  nominated,  was  in 
the  main  a  repetition  of  the  platform  of 
1848,  with  the  addition  of  resolutions  pledg 
ing  the  party  to  a  faithful  execution  of  the 
compromise  measures,  and  condemning  "all 
attempts  at  renewing,  in  Congress  or  out 
of  it,  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question, 
under  whatever  shape  or  color  the  at 
tempt  may  be  made."  The  reading  of 
the  resolution  concerning  the  compromise 
measures  was  received  with  tumultuous 
applause. 

The  Whigs,  who  met  at  Baltimore  two 
weeks  later,  were  badly  divided  as  to  both 
principles  and  candidates.  The  compromise 
had  forever  alienated  the  radical  antislavery 


160    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

and  free  soil  members.  The  candidate  of 
the  Northern  Whigs  was  General  Scott; 
of  the  Southern,  Fillmore;  while  Webster, 
who  had  the  support  of  New  England  except 
Maine,  was  assured  of  some  Southern  votes 
also.  On  the  fifty-third  ballot  Scott  was 
chosen.  The  platform,  pledging  the  party 
to  a  "strict  enforcement"  of  the  measures 
of  1850,  and  deprecating  all  further  agita 
tion  of  the  question  "whenever,  wherever, 
or  however  the  attempt  may  be  made," 
might  as  well  have  been  written  by  the 
Democrats,  and  was  in  fact  carried  by 
Southern  votes. 

A  convention  of  Free  Soil  Democrats  at 
Pittsburgh  denounced  slavery  as  "a  sin 
against  God  and  a  crime  against  man,"  de 
clared  that  "slavery  is  sectional  and  freedom 
national,"  and  nominated  John  P.  Hale  of 
New  Hampshire.  As  most  of  the  Free  Soilers 
who  had  acted  independently  in  1848  had 
now  gone  back  to  either  the  Democratic 
or  the  Whig  ranks,  the  Pittsburgh  conven 
tion,  as  its  platform  shows,  represented  only 
the  irreconcilable  antislavery  radicals  and 
Abolitionists. 

The  campaign  was  uneventful.  The  most 
that  could  be  said  for  Pierce  was  that  he 
was  a  respectable  gentleman,  entirely  in 
accord  with  the  platform  of  his  party;  but- 
even  the  literary  skill  of  his  friend  and 
classmate,  Hawthorne,  who  wrote  his  cam- 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          161 

paign  biography,  could  not  make  him  inter 
esting.  The  only  claim  of  Scott,  familiarly 
known  in  army  circles  as  "Fuss  and  Feath 
ers,"  was  his  military  record.  Neither 
candidate,  accordingly,  awakened  enthu 
siasm,  but  the  Democrats  were  united  where 
the  Whigs  were  divided,  and  union  brought 
victory.  Pierce  received  254  electoral  votes 
against  42  for  Scott.  Of  the  thirty-one 
States  which  took  part  in  the  election,  only 
four  —  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Kentucky, 
and  Tennessee  —  supported  the  Whig  candi 
dates.  Never  had  a  party  met  a  more  crush 
ing  defeat.  It  was  popularly  said  that  the 
Whig  party  died  of  an  attempt  to  swallow 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law;  but  that  law  was, 
after  all,  only  the  most  offensive  incident  of 
a  system  which  the  North  was  rapidly 
repudiating  as  a  whole,  and  in  regard  to 
which  the  Whigs  were  no  longer  able  to 
speak  either  clearly  or  unitedly. 

Leaders,  too,  as  well  as  parties  were  chang 
ing.  Clay  died  at  Washington,  June  29, 
hopeful  to  the  last  of  beneficent  results 
from  the  compromise  which  he  had  labored 
to  frame.  Webster,  with  unabated  love 
for  the  Union,  but  broken-hearted  at  the 
denunciations  of  his  former  supporters  and 
the  loss  of  the  presidency,  passed  away  at 
Marshfield,  Massachusetts,  October  23.  Ben- 
ton,  for  thirty  years  Senator  from  Missouri, 
had  met  defeat  at  last  in  1850,  though  he 


162    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

presently  secured  an  election  to  the  House 
of  Representatives.  The  political  tasks 
of  the  future  were  for  other  hands  than 
those  which  for  a  generation  had  directed 
them. 

The  years  immediately  following  the  war 
with  Mexico  saw  the  rise  of  a  number  of 
important  diplomatic  questions,  with  some 
of  which  slavery  was  indirectly  involved. 
The  spirit  of  "manifest  destiny,"  inspired 
by  the  acquisition  of  territory  on  the 
Pacific,  joined  to  Northern  hostility  to 
territorial  enhancement  of  slavery,  bred, 
on  the  one  hand,  an  arrogant  temper  in 
regard  to  Europe,  and,  on  the  other,  cau 
tion  in  dealing  with  the  countries  to  the 
south. 

One  result  of  the  revolution  of  1848  in 
Austria  was  the  establishment  of  a  short 
lived  Hungarian  republic.  The  dispatch 
of  an  American  agent  to  extend  recognition 
to  the  new  State,  in  case  it  should  prove 
permanent,  drew  from  Austria  a  protest. 
Webster,  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  a  letter 
to  Hiilsemann,  the  Austrian  charge  d'af 
faires  at  Washington,  upheld  with  vigor  the 
right  of  the  United  States  to  express  its 
sympathy  with  struggling  people  anywhere. 
"The  power  of  this  republic,"  he  wrote, 
"at  the  present  moment  is  spread  over  a 
region  one  of  the  richest  and  most  fertile  on 
the  globe,  and  of  an  extent  in  comparison 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          163 

with  which  the  possessions  of  the  House  of 
Hapsburg  are  but  a  patch  on  the  earth's 
surface.  .  .  .  Nothing  will  deter  either 
the  Government  or  the  people  of  the  United 
States  from  exercising,  at  their  own  discre 
tion,  the  rights  belonging  to  them  as  an 
independent  nation,  and  of  forming  and 
expressing  their  own  opinions,  freely  and 
at  all  times,  upon  the  great  political  events 
which  may  transpire  among  the  civilized 
nations  of  the  earth."  Webster  admitted 
that  the  letter  was  "boastful  and  rough/' 
but  justified  himself  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  well  to  "speak  out,"  and  that  the 
letter  would  appeal  to  the  national  pride 
and  make  disunion  contemptible. 

The  discovery  of  gold  in  California  raised 
the  question  of  the  control  of  the  isthmian 
passages  between  Panama  and  Tehuantepec, 
across  which  emigrants  were  traveling  in 
increasing  numbers.  The  best  route  for  a 
ship  canal  was  believed  to  be  that  of  the 
San  Juan  River  and  its  connecting  lakes, 
in  the  State  of  Nicaragua.  Great  Britain, 
however,  claimed  a  protectorate  over  the 
Mosquito  Indians  on  the  east  coast  of 
Nicaragua;  and  although  the  validity  of 
the  claim  was  denied  by  the  United  States, 
the  construction  of  a  canal  or  other  highway 
without  British  consent  would  be  likely 
to  provoke  war.  In  1850  Clayton,  Secretary 
of  State,  concluded  with  Sir  Henry  Lytton 


164    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Bulwer,  British  minister  at  Washington,  a 
treaty  by  which  the  two  powers  agreed  to 
aid  in  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic 
canal  across  the  isthmus,  to  guarantee  its 
neutrality,  and  to  invite  other  nations  to 
join  in  the  guarantee.  At  the  same  time 
control  or  dominion  over  Nicaragua,  Costa 
Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  other  part 
of  Central  America  was  mutually  renounced. 
A  dispute  over  the  extent  of  British  authority 
in  the  region,  culminating  in  the  bombard 
ment  of  Greytown,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
San  Juan  River,  by  a  United  States  vessel 
in  1854,  was  left  for  later  settlement. 

Relations  with  Cuba  were  difficult  through 
out  Fillmore's  administration.  An  intima 
tion,  in  1848,  of  a  willingness  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  to  purchase  the  island  had 
drawn  from  Spain  the  reply  that  "sooner 
than  see  the  island  transferred  to  any  power 
they  would  prefer  seeing  it  sunk  in  the 
ocean."  In  the  South,  however,  where  the 
desire  for  annexation  was  pronounced,  a 
willing  ear  was  given  to  reports  that  the 
Cubans  were  ready  to  revolt;  and  the 
government  found  it  impossible  to  prevent 
filibustering.  When  in  August,  1851,  the 
leading  agitator,  Lopez,  was  captured  and 
executed  by  the  Spanish  authorities  in  Cuba, 
and  fifty  of  his  followers,  some  of  them 
prominent  young  men  from  the  South, 
were  court-martialed  and  shot,  a  mob  at 


IN  THE  EARLY  FIFTIES          165 

New  Orleans  retaliated  by  attacking  the 
Spanish  consulate  and  looting  Spanish  shops. 
For  this  outbreak  the  United  States  properly 
made  reparation.1 

1  T.  C.  Smith,  Parties  and  Slavery,  82,  83. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   REPEAL    OF   THE   MISSOURI    COMPROMISE 

IT  was  to  the  credit  of  President  Pierce 
that  he  made  no  attempt  to  conceal  or 
qualify  his  opinions  on  the  question  of 
slavery.  "I  believe,"  he  declared  in  his 
inaugural,  "that  involuntary  servitude,  as 
it  exists  in  different  States  of  this  Confeder 
acy,  is  recognized  by  the  Constitution.  I 
believe  that  it  stands  like  any  other  admitted 
right,  and  that  the  States  where  it  exists 
are  entitled  to  efficient  remedies  to  enforce 
the  constitutional  provisions.  I  hold  that 
the  laws  of  1850,  commonly  called  the 
'compromise  measures,'  are  strictly  con 
stitutional  and  to  be  unhesitatingly  carried 
into  effect.  I  believe  that  the  constitutional 
authorities  of  this  Republic  are  bound  to 
regard  the  rights  of  the  South  in  this  respect 
as  they  would  view  any  other  legal  and 
constitutional  right,  and  that  the  laws  to 
enforce  them  should  be  respected  and  obeyed, 
not  with  a  reluctance  encouraged  by  abstract 
opinions  as  to  their  propriety  in  a  different 
state  of  society,  but  cheerfully  and  ac- 

166 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     167 

cording  to  the  decisions  of  the  tribunal  to 
which  their  exposition  belongs.  Such  have 
been,  and  are,  my  convictions,  and  upon 
them  I  shall  act." 

So  frank  a  declaration  of  opinion  by  the 
chief  magistrate  of  the  nation  would  be 
significant  at  any  time,  but  in  this  case  the 
significance  arose,  not  from  the  character  of 
Pierce,  but  from  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  words  were  uttered. 

The  Territory  of  Missouri,  organized  by 
act  of  Congress  in  1812,  comprised  all  of  the 
original  Louisiana  purchase  except  the  State 
of  Louisiana,  which  was  admitted  to  the 
Union  the  same  year.  The  area  was  reduced 
by  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of 
Arkansas  in  1819.  Upon  the  admission  of 
Missouri  as  a  State,  in  1821,  the  territorial 
organization  lapsed,  and  the  portion  of  the 
former  Territory  not  embraced  within  the 
boundaries  of  the  new  State  became  again 
public  domain,  without  governmental  organ 
ization  of  any  sort.  In  1834,  when  the  so- 
called  Indian  Territory  was  set  apart,  whites 
were  excluded  from  the  whole  region  save 
as  traders  and  missionaries.  In  the  same 
year  the  region  north  of  Missouri  and  east 
of  the  Missouri  River  was  annexed  to  Mich 
igan  Territory,  and  in  1836  the  western 
boundary  of  Missouri,  north  of  the  junction 
of  the  Kansas  and  Missouri  Rivers,  was 
extended  to  the  latter  river. 


168    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

For  many  years  after  the  admission  of 
Missouri  the  unorganized  territory  to  the 
west  continued  to  be  called  Missouri,  the 
name  gradually  giving  way  to  those  of 
Kansas,  Nebraska,  or  the  "Platte  country." 
The  Santa  Fe  and  Oregon  trails  carried  an 
increasing  overland  commerce  to  Mexico, 
California,  and  Oregon,  while  a  few  mili 
tary  posts,  the  principal  one  being  that  of 
Fort  Leavenworth,  on  the  Missouri  River, 
helped  to  keep  hostile  Indians  in  check. 

As  early  as  1844  the  Secretary  of  War, 
Wilkins,  urged  by  the  growth  of  the  over 
land  trade  and  the  increasing  migration  to 
Oregon,  recommended  the  organization  of 
a  territorial  government  under  the  name  of 
Nebraska,  as  preliminary  to  the  establish 
ment  of  further  military  posts.  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  who  had  just  entered  Congress  as 
a  Representative  from  Illinois,  at  once 
introduced  a  bill  for  the  purpose,  but  no 
action  was  taken  by  the  House.  The  matter 
rested  until  March,  1848,  when  Douglas, 
now  a  member  of  the  Senate,  again  intro 
duced  a  Nebraska  bill,  which  likewise  came 
to  nothing.  A  third  bill  in  December  was 
considered  by  the  Senate  and  recommitted. 

The  Compromise  of  1850  did  not  affect 
the  Nebraska  country,  which,  so  far  as 
slavery  was  concerned,  rested  under  the 
prohibition  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  of 
1820.  The  unwillingness  of  Texas  to  be 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     169 

subdivided,  however,  and  the  unlikelihood 
that  slavery  would  ever  be  profitable,  if 
indeed  it  were  even  permitted,  in  New 
Mexico  or  Utah,  left  the  South  with  no 
territorial  advantage  as  a  result  of  the  com 
promise.  It  was  not  likely,  therefore,  that 
the  vast  region  west  of  the  Missouri  River 
would  long  escape  notice,  even  though,  by 
a  solemn  agreement  now  a  generation  old, 
slavery  had  been  forever  excluded  from  it. 

In  December,  1852,  Representative  Hall 
of  Missouri  introduced  in  the  House  a  bill  to 
organize  the  Territory  of  Platte.  On  Febru 
ary  2  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  Richardson  of  Illinois,  reported 
to  the  House  a  bill  to  organize  the  Territory 
of  Nebraska.  By  a  vote  of  98  to  43  the  bill 
passed  the  House,  but  the  Senate,  by  a  vote 
of  23  to  17,  refused  to  consider  it.  The  bill 
did  not  propose  to  legislate  slavery  into  the 
new  Territory,  and  the  votes  in  opposition, 
given  chiefly  by  Southern  members,  indi 
cated  a  plan,  already  somewhat  formed,  to 
set  aside  the  Missouri  Compromise  on 
the  ground  that  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty  had  superseded  it.  The  Demo 
crats,  meantime,  had  won  the  election  of 
1852,  and  on  the  4th  of  March,  1853,  Pierce 
had  announced  his  policy  in  the  words  just 
quoted  from  his  inaugural. 

The  Thirty-third  Congress,  which  met 
December  5,  1853,  had  in  the  Senate  36 


170    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Democrats,  20  Whigs,  and  2  Free  Soilers; 
and  in  the  House  159  Democrats,  71  Whigs, 
and  4  Free  Soilers.  As  compared  with  the 
previous  Congress,  the  Democratic  majority 
showed  an  increase  in  both  branches.  On 
the  14th  of  December  Senator  Dodge  of 
Iowa  introduced  a  bill  to  organize  the 
Territory  of  Nebraska;  Miller  of  Missouri 
followed  on  the  22d  with  a  similar  bill  in  the 
House;  and  the  last  great  legislative  battle 
over  slavery  began. 

The  Senate  bill,  substantially  identical 
with  the  bill  reported  from  the  Committee 
on  Territories  the  previous  February,  pro 
vided  for  the  organization  as  one  Territory 
of  the  whole  region  included  between  the 
parallels  of  36°  30'  (the  southern  boundary 
of  Missouri)  and  43°  30'  on  the  south  and 
north,  Missouri  and  Iowa  on  the  east,  and 
the  Rocky  Mountains  on  the  west.  The 
bill  went  in  regular  course  to  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  of  which  Douglas  was  chair 
man. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1854,  Douglas 
reported  from  the  committee  a  substitute 
for  the  Dodge  bill,  incorporating  the  pro 
vision  regarding  slavery  that  had  been 
included  in  the  acts  organizing  the  Terri 
tories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  in  1850, 
together  with  provisions  for  the  faithful 
execution  in  the  new  Territory  of  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  law.  In  the  opinion  of  the  com- 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     171 

mittee,  the  measures  of  1850  "were  intended 
to  have  a  far  more  comprehensive  and 
enduring  effect  than  the  mere  adjustment 
of  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent 
acquisition  of  Mexican  territory."  They 
were  intended,  rather,  "to  establish  certain 
great  principles  which  would  not  only  fur 
nish  adequate  remedies  for  existing  evils, 
but  in  all  time  to  come,  avoid  the  perils  of 
a  similar  agitation  by  withdrawing  the 
question  of  slavery  from  the  halls  of  Congress 
and  the  political  arena,  and  committing  it  to 
the  arbitrament  of  those  who  were  imme 
diately  interested  in,  and  alone  responsible 
for  its  consequences."  For  this  reason,  and 
because  Nebraska  occupied  "the  same  rela 
tive  position  to  the  slavery  question"  as 
did  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  the  committee 
thought  proper  to  "perpetuate"  those  prin 
ciples  in  the  pending  bill. 

On  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  the  committee  ex 
pressed  no  opinion,  beyond  stating  concisely 
the  arguments  for  and  against  the  right  of 
Congress  to  enact  such  a  prohibition.  As 
Congress,  in  the  legislation  of  1850,  neither 
affirmed  nor  repealed  the  preexisting  anti- 
slavery  laws  of  Mexico,  nor  declared  its 
view  of  the  extent  of  constitutional  authority 
over  slave  property  in  the  Territories,  the 
committee  saw  no  reason  for  reviving  the 
question  now. 


172    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Did  Douglas  mean  to  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise?  Had  the  "principles  of  1850" 
superseded  that  of  1820,  especially  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  two  bodies  of  legislation 
applied  to  different  regions?  Could  popular 
sovereignty  be  established  in  Nebraska 
without  first  repealing  the  prohibition  of 
1820?  The  most  careful  scrutiny  of  the  com 
mittee  report  failed  to  show  a  clear  answer 
to  these  questions. 

To  neither  party,  accordingly,  was  the 
amended  bill  acceptable.  In  order  to  clear 
it  of  obscurity,  Senator  Dixon  of  Ken 
tucky,  on  January  16,  gave  notice  of  an 
amendment  excepting  the  proposed  Terri 
tory  from  the  operation  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  and  opening  it  to  slavery;  to 
which  Charles  Sumner  of  Massachusetts 
replied  the  following  day  with  an  amend 
ment  expressly  continuing  in  force  in  Neb 
raska  the  slavery  prohibition  of  1820. 

On  the  23d  several  new  amendments  were 
reported  from  the  committee.  There  were 
now  to  be  two  Territories,  Kansas  and 
Nebraska,  instead  of  one,  the  southern 
boundary  of  Kansas  being  also  changed  from 
36°  30'  to  37°,  and  the  northern  boundary 
of  Nebraska  from  43°  30'  to  43°.  The 
slavery  issue  was  met  by  an  amendment 
declaring  the  Missouri  Compromise  inopera 
tive  in  the  two  Territories,  on  the  ground 
that  it  had  been  "superseded"  by  the  com- 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     173 

promise  measures  of  1850.  The  bill  with 
these  changes  Douglas  moved  to  substitute 
for  the  bill  originally  reported. 

The  next  day  appeared  an  "Appeal  of 
the  Independent  Democrats  in  Congress  to 
the  People  of  the  United  States,"  dated 
January  19,  and  signed  by  Chase,  Giddings, 
and  Wade  of  Ohio,  Sumner  and  De  Witt  of 
Massachusetts,  and  Gerritt  Smith  of  New 
York.  The  "Appeal"  arraigned  the  bill  as 
"a  gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge;  as  a 
criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights;  as 
part  and  parcel  of  an  atrocious  plot  to  ex 
clude  from  a  vast  unoccupied  region  immi 
grants  from  the  old  world,  and  free  laborers 
from  our  own  States,  and  convert  it  into  a 
dreary  region  of  despotism,  inhabited  by 
masters  and  slaves."  It  warned  the  country 
that  "the  dearest  interests  of  freedom  and 
the  Union  are  in  imminent  peril,"  charged 
Douglas  with  bad  faith,  and  declared  that 
the  Union  could  be  maintained  only  "by 
the  full  recognition  of  the  just  claims  of 
freedom  and  man." 

The  debate  which  began  January  30  and 
continued  until  March  3  was  of  unparalleled 
bitterness,  and  aroused  the  whole  country. 
Douglas,  familiarly  known  as  the  "Little 
Giant,"  was  a  masterful  debater,  and  with 
the  firm  support  of  the  President  and  the 
Southern  Whigs  was  assured  of  votes  enough 
to  pass  the  bill;  but  its  opponents  fought 


174    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

him  desperately  at  every  point.  Douglas 
had  declared  in  1849,  in  a  speech  at  Spring 
field,  Ohio,  that  the  Missouri  Compromise 
"had  become  canonized  in  the  hearts  of  the 
American  people,  as  a  sacred  thing  which 
no  ruthless  hand  would  ever  be  reckless 
enough  to  disturb."  Now,  however,  with 
revised  opinions,  he  made  a  violent  attack 
upon  Chase  and  the  signers  of  the  "Appeal," 
asserting  that  "this  tornado  has  been  raised 
by  abolitionists  and  abolitionists  alone," 
and  accusing  them  of  "a  falsification  of  the 
law  and  of  the  facts." 

Chase,  in  one  of  his  greatest  speeches, 
riddled  the  slavery  provisions  of  the  bill 
from  end  to  end.  "The  truth  is,"  he  de 
clared,  "the  compromise  acts  of  1850  were 
not  intended  to  introduce  any  principle  of 
territorial  organization  to  any  other  Terri 
tory  except  that  covered  by  them."  If  the 
advocates  of  slavery  wished  to  repeal  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  let  them  "do  it 
openly,  do  it  boldly.  .  .  .  Do  not  declare 
it  'inoperative'  because  superseded  by  the 
principles  of  the  legislation  of  1850."  If 
this  bill  is  passed,  "it  will  light  up  a  fire  in 
the  country  which  may,  perhaps,  consume 
those  who  kindle  it." 

To  meet  the  weighty  objection  that,  under 
our  system,  one  law  cannot  "supersede" 
another,  Douglas,  on  the  6th  of  February, 
offered  an  amendment  substituting  for  the 


THE   MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     175 

clause  "which  was  superseded  by,"  the 
clause  "which  is  inconsistent  with."  The 
dilemma  was  still  as  great  as  before,  some 
strong  advocates  of  the  bill  still  insisting 
that  the  only  way  to  get  rid  of  a  law  was  to 
repeal  it.  The  next  day  Douglas  took  the 
final  step  by  proposing  an  amendment  extend 
ing  to  the  proposed  Territories  the  Consti 
tution  and  such  laws  of  the  United  States  as 
were  not  locally  inapplicable,  except  the 
prohibitory  section  of  the  Missouri  act, 
"which,  being  inconsistent  with  the  prin 
ciple  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories,  is 
hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void;  it 
being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this 
act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Terri 
tory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom, 
but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free 
to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  insti 
tutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

The  adoption  of  this  amendment,  Febru 
ary  15,  was  followed  on  March  4,  after  an 
all-night  session,1  by  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
Twenty-eight  Democrats  and  nine  Whigs, 
all  of  the  latter  from  the  slave  States,  fur 
nished  the  majority.  The  fourteen  negative 
votes  were  cast  by  two  Free  Soilers,  one 
Southern  and  six  Northern  Whigs,  and  one 
Southern  and  four  Northern  Democrats. 

1  The  legislative  date  is,  of  course,  March  3. 


176    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

We  must  now  turn  to  the  House  of 
Representatives.  On  the  22d  of  December 
Representative  Miller  of  Missouri  intro 
duced  in  that  body  a  bill  to  organize  the 
Territory  of  Nebraska.  The  Committee  on 
Territories  changed  the  bill  into  one  for  the 
organization  of  two  Territories,  Kansas  and 
Nebraska,  and  in  that  form  it  was  reported 
by  Richardson  on  January  31.  The  bill  did 
not  disturb  the  slavery  prohibition  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  but  a  minority  report, 
submitted  by  English  of  Indiana,  urged  the 
application  of  the  principle  of  popular  sover 
eignty  to  the  proposed  Territories. 

The  bill  as  reported  was  not  taken  up 
for  formal  consideration  until  May  8.  On 
the  14th  of  February,  however,  an  irregular 
debate  on  slavery,  compromise,  and  the  pro 
visions  of  the  Senate  and  House  bills  began, 
which  continued,  regardless  of  the  business 
nominally  before  the  House,  for  ten  weeks. 
The  Senate  bill,  coming  over  to  the  House, 
was  put  on  the  calendar  March  21,  and  ap 
parently  buried. 

In  the  meantime  Congress  was  not  left 
in  ignorance  of  the  excited  state  of  public 
feeling.  A  furious  torrent  of  speeches, 
resolutions,  sermons,  and  editorials  burst 
from  the  North  upon  the  President,  Douglas, 
and  the  South,  sweeping  to  destruction  the 
"finality"  and  labored  peace  upon  which 
the  reunited  Democracy  had  felicitated  it- 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     177 

self.  On  the  14th  of  March  Edward  Everett 
submitted  to  the  Senate  the  protest  of  three 
thousand  New  England  clergy  against  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Bill.  Douglas,  forgetting 
his  usual  courtesy,  declared  that  the  signers 
had  "desecrated  the  pulpit  and  prostituted 
the  sacred  desk  to  the  miserable  and  cor 
rupting  influence  of  party  politics."  A  New 
York  paper  stated  on  March  15  that,  up  to 
that  time,  between  two  and  three  hundred 
large  public  meetings  in  the  North  had 
denounced  the  bill,  against  less  than  half  a 
dozen  that  had  approved  it.  The  legislatures 
of  New  York,  Massachusetts,  Maine,  Rhode 
Island,  and  Wisconsin,  the  last  three  Demo 
cratic  States,  passed  resolutions  of  protest. 

But  the  course  of  the  measure  was  not 
to  be  stayed.  On  the  8th  of  May  Richardson 
called  up  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Eight 
een  bills  and  resolutions  preceded  the  House 
bill,  which  was  identical  with  the  original 
Senate  bill,  on  the  calendar:  these  were  one 
by  one  laid  aside,  each  time  with  a  demand 
for  the  yeas  and  nays  and  a  calling  of  the 
roll.  A  substitute,  identical  with  the  Senate 
bill  save  for  a  provision  restricting  suffrage 
and  office-holding  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  was  then  offered  for  the  House  bill, 
and  debate  began. 

Every  device  known  to  parliamentary 
law  was  resorted  to  to  oppose  the  bill,  or 
to  amend  it,  or  to  delay  its  passage.  On 


178    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Thursday  and  Friday,  May  11  and  12,  the 
House  was  in  continuous  session  for  thirty- 
six  hours.  Bitter  recrimination  and  attack, 
angry  personal  exchanges,  and  drunkenness 
marked  the  proceedings,  and  an  open  fight 
was  narrowly  averted.  It  was  all  to  no  pur 
pose.  Douglas  was  at  hand  to  aid  with  his 
presence  and  advice;  party  newspapers 
had  already  declared  that  no  Democrat  who 
voted  against  the  bill  could  expect  further 
recognition  from  the  administration;  and 
the  majority,  though  small,  was  united. 
Shortly  before  midnight  of  the  22d  the  bill 
was  passed. 

Of  the  113  affirmative  votes,  all  but  12 
were  given  by  Democrats;  but  of  the  100 
who  voted  in  the  negative,  42  were  Northern 
Democrats,  2  were  Southern  Democrats, 
and  7  were  Southern  Whigs.  Benton,  who 
had  been  elected  to  the  House  after  his  defeat 
in  the  senatorial  contest  of  1850,  had  been 
unceasing  in  his  opposition  to  the  bill,  and 
voted  against  it. 

Douglas  championed  the  bill  in  the  Senate, 
and  a  violent  debate  of  two  days  marked  its 
passage  by  that  body.  Sumner  put  the  case 
in  a  nutshell  when  he  declared  that  the 
measure  was  "at  once  the  worst  and  the 
best  bill  on  which  Congress  ever  acted.  .  .  . 
It  annuls  all  past  compromises  with  slavery, 
and  makes  all  future  compromises  impos 
sible.  Thus  it  puts  freedom  and  slavery 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     179 

face  to  face,  and  bids  them  grapple."  On 
the  26th  the  bill  passed  the  Senate  without 
a  division,  and  on  the  30th  it  received  the 
approving  signature  of  President  Pierce. 

One  cannot  read  the  history  of  this 
remarkable  episode  without  speculating  as 
to  the  motive  of  Douglas.  Douglas  was  an 
able  lawyer,  a  skilled  parliamentarian,  a 
practical  politician,  and  the  greatest  debater 
of  his  time.  He  had  been  in  Congress  during 
the  session  of  1850,  and  was  familiar  not 
only  with  what  was  said  and  done  at  that 
time  in  regard  to  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
but  with  the  temper  and  point  of  view  of 
the  men  who  advocated  and  opposed  the 
legislation  of  that  year.  No  man  in  public 
life  needed  less  that  any  one  should  tell  him 
how  important  it  was  for  the  Democrats 
that  the  slavery  question  should  be  kept 
out  of  politics,  or  how  instant  and  out 
spoken  would  be  the  opposition  if  the 
slavery  interests  were  again  openly  favored. 
Why,  then,  did  he  reopen  a  question  which 
weighty  political  reasons  apparently  dic 
tated  should  remain  closed? 

The  charge  that  he  acted  in  the  matter 
as  the  agent  and  spokesman  of  the  South, 
which  section,  it  was  averred,  demanded 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
was  more  than  once  made  in  debate,  and 
in  the  North  was  widely  believed.  The 
charge  cannot  be  maintained.  Senator  Clay- 


180    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

ton  of  Delaware  stated  the  case  accurately 
when  he  said,  three  days  before  Douglas's 
bill  passed  the  Senate:  "This  proposition 
to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise  did  not 
originate  with  Southern  men.  It  comes  from 
the  North.  The  Senator  from  Illinois 
[Douglas]  is  its  reputed  author.  The  Com 
mittee  on  Territories,  of  which  he  is  the 
chairman,  composed  of  a  majority  of  North 
ern  men,  authorized  him  to  report  it.  We 
know  that  a  majority  of  Northern  Senators 
here  concur  with  him  in  pressing  its  repeal 
upon  us.  The  Southern  Senators  .  .  . 
have  not  refused  to  accede  to  it.  With  a 
vote  almost  unanimous  they  will  accede 
to  it,  especially  as  it  is  known  to  be  supported 
by  a  Northern  President,  and  a  cabinet 
composed  of  a  Northern  majority.  I  did 
not  ask  for  it.  .  .  .  I  do  not  believe  it  will 
repay  us  for  the  agitation  and  irritation  it 
has  cost.  But  can  a  Senator  whose  constitu 
ents  hold  slaves  be  expected  to  resist  and 
refuse  what  the  North  thus  freely  offers  as 
a  measure  due  to  us?" 

The  charge,  frequently  made  at  the  time 
and  often  repeated,  that  the  bill  was  brought 
forward  to  help  out  a  weak  administration 
and  further  Douglas's  aspirations  for  the 
presidency,  was  roughly  voiced  by  Cullom 
of  Tennessee  during  the  House  debate. 
"This  bill,  sir,  should  be  on  the  private 
calendar,  and  the  title  of  it  should  be  so 


THE  MISSOUKI  COMPROMISE     181 

amended  as  to  read,  'A  bill  to  make  great 
men  out  of  small  ones,  and  to  sacrifice  the 
public  peace  and  prosperity  upon  the  altar 
of  political  ambition'  .  .  .  The  author 
of  this  movement  was  a  defeated,  or,  rather, 
a  rejected  presidential  aspirant  in  1852.  .  .  . 
We  had  a  weak  and  tottering  administra 
tion,  reeling  under  the  blows  laid  on  from 
every  quarter  .  .  .  for  its  gross  disregard 
of  the  platform  upon  which  it  came  into 
power,  and  of  the  just  claims  of  the  conser 
vative  portion  of  the  Democratic  party. 
.  .  .  The  Senator  from  Illinois,  seeing 
this  state  of  things,  thought  he  had  a  good 
chance  to  do  something  handsome  for  him 
self,  and  at  the  same  time  to  relieve  the 
Democratic  party  from  the  suspicions  which 
had  attached  to  its  head.  .  .  .  He  did 
not  wait  to  be  bidden  by  the  administra 
tion.  In  looking  over  the  whole  ground,  he 
thought  the  readiest  way  of  creating  a  coun 
ter-excitement,  to  save  the  administration 
and  the  Democratic  party,  in  the  success 
of  which  he  had  an  interest,  would  be  to 
get  up  a  row  on  the  slave  question." 

Against  the  sharp  accusations  of  Cullom 
should,  in  fairness,  be  placed  the  words  of 
Douglas  himself.  "I  have  not,"  he  said, 
"brought  this  question  forward  as  a  Northern 
man  or  as  a  Southern  man.  ...  I  have 
brought  it  forward  as  an  American  Senator, 
representing  a  State  which  is  true  to  this 


182    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

principle,  and  which  has  approved  of  my 
action  with  respect  to  the  Nebraska  bill.  I 
have  brought  it  forward  not  as  an  act  of 
justice  to  the  South  more  than  to  the  North. 
I  have  presented  it  especially  as  an  act  of 
justice  to  the  people  of  those  Territories, 
and  of  the  States  to  be  formed  therefrom, 
now  and  in  all  time  to  come.  I  have  nothing 
to  say  about  Northern  rights  or  Southern 
rights.  I  know  of  no  such  divisions  or  dis 
tinctions  under  the  Constitution." 

It  is  easier  today  than  it  was  in  1854  to 
accept  Douglas's  statement,  notwithstanding 
that  his  course  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
matter  does  little  credit  to  his  judgment. 
Douglas  was  to  make  it  clear  beyond  perad- 
venture,  before  half  a  dozen  years  had 
passed,  that  he  stood  immovably  for  the 
Union  as  against  either  sectionalism  or 
secession.  His  political  opinions,  on  the 
other  hand,  were  more  the  result  of  impulse 
and  notions  of  expediency  than  of  careful 
or  studious  reflection.  He  had  doubtless 
convinced  himself  that  the  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty  was  the  correct  one  to 
apply  to  slavery,  and  that  the  opening  of 
new  Territories  on  that  basis  was  an  act  of 
justice  to  the  Union  as  a  whole;  but  if  he 
imagined  that  a  reopening  of  the  question 
in  1854  would  strengthen  the  Pierce  admin 
istration,  or  help  his  own  presidential  chances 
in  1856,  he  showed  a  short-sightedness  of 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     183 

which  many  a  lesser  politician  would  have 
been  ashamed. 

An  immediate  effect  of  the  appearance 
of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  the  revival 
of  Northern  resistance  to  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Act,  in  regard  to  which  there  had  been, 
for  two  years,  a  declining  intensity  of  feel 
ing.  In  March,  1854,  a  fugitive  slave  was 
rescued  from  jail  at  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin. 
One  of  the  rescuers,  a  journalist  named 
Booth,  was  arrested,  but  released  under 
habeas  corpus  process  by  a  justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  who  declared 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law  unconstitutional. 
The  decision  was  subsequently  affirmed 
by  the  full  bench,  but  was  appealed  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  where 
in  1859  the  decision  was  reversed  and  the 
opinion  of  the  State  court  severely  criticised. 

On  the  evening  of  Wednesday,  the  24th 
of  May,  the  day  before  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  finally  passed  the  Senate,  a  fugitive  slave 
named  Anthony  Burns  was  arrested  in 
Boston.  The  spread  of  the  news  threw  the 
city  into  a  ferment.  On  Friday  a  great 
gathering  packed  Faneuil  Hall,  the  old 
"cradle  of  liberty,"  to  listen  to  inflamma 
tory  speeches  by  Wendell  Phillips  and  Theo 
dore  Parker.  While  the  meeting  was  in 
progress  word  was  received  that  a  negro 
mob  was  attempting  to  rescue  Burns;  and 
the  audience  rushed  from  the  hall  to  the 


184    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

scene  of  excitement  at  Court  Square.  There 
a  small  party  led  by  Thomas  Wentworth 
Higginson,  swelled  to  two  thousand  by  the 
recruits  from  Faneuil  Hall,  broke  in  the  door 
of  the  courthouse;  but  the  building  was 
stoutly  defended,  and  the  mob  was  repulsed. 

The  mayor  called  out  two  companies  of 
artillery  to  support  the  United  States  mar 
shal,  and  the  trial  of  Burns  proceeded  on 
Monday  under  the  protection  of  soldiers 
and  police.  The  case  against  Burns  was 
clear,  and  he  was  delivered  to  his  claimant. 
With  a  guard  of  United  States  artillery  and 
marines,  twenty-two  companies  of  militia, 
and  a  marshal's  posse  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  deputies,  Burns  was  marched 
to  the  wharf  and  placed  on  a  revenue  cutter 
bound  for  Virginia;  while  windows  were 
draped  in  mourning,  and  crowds  of  spectators 
hissed  and  groaned. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  Clayton's 
proposed  amendment  to  the  Kansas-Neb 
raska  bill,  limiting  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States  the  right  to  vote  and  hold  office  in 
the  Territories.  Political  opposition  to 
foreigners,  always  popular  in  America,  had 
in  1845,  under  the  name  of  Native  Ameri 
canism,  assumed  national  importance,  four 
members  of  the  House  from  New  York 
and  two  from  Pennsylvania  representing 
the  new  party.  Famines  in  Ireland,  fol 
lowed  by  the  European  revolutions  of  1848- 


THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE     185 

49,  added  greatly  to  the  number  of  foreign 
ers,  many  of  them  Roman  Catholics,  in  the 
country. 

In  1852  the  agitation  broke  out  afresh 
under  the  popular  name  of  the  "Know- 
Nothing"  movement.  Secret  societies,  based 
upon  opposition  to  foreigners  and  Roman 
Catholics  as  voters  and  office-holders,  sprang 
up  rapidly  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
New  York,  Maryland,  and  Ohio.  The  most 
important  of  these  societies,  the  Order  of  the 
Star-Spangled  Banner,  had  been  organized 
in  1850,  but  its  existence  did  not  become 
generally  known  until  1853.  The  members, 
when  interrogated,  professed  entire  igno 
rance  of  the  purposes  or  methods  of  the 
societies,  and  most  of  the  organizations 
were  so  devised  as  to  give  the  control  to 
a  few  high  officials.  A  general  convention 
of  Know-Nothings,  representing  societies 
in  thirteen  States,  was  held  in  New  York 
City  in  June,  1854.  By  secretly  endorsing 
Whig  or  Democratic  candidates,  the  new 
party  for  a  time  confounded  the  old  politi 
cal  leaders,  and  exercised  considerable  con 
trol  of  State  and  local  elections. 

The  complete  break-up  of  the  Whig  party 
in  the  North,  following  the  passage  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  gave  the  new  move 
ment  its  opportunity.  Under  the  name  of 
the  American  party,  the  organization  in 
1854  carried  the  State  elections  in  Massa- 


186    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

chusetts  and  Delaware,  and  polled  a  large 
vote  in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania;  while 
many  candidates  nominally  reckoned  as 
Republicans  or  "Anti-Nebraska  men"  were 
in  reality  Americans.  In  1855  the  move 
ment  spread  to  the  South  and  threatened 
havoc  in  the  Whig  party  of  that  section, 
but  the  comparatively  small  number  of 
foreigners  there  limited  its  influence.  By 
1856  the  party  was  large  enough  to  hold  a 
national  convention  and  nominate  candidates 
for  President  and  Vice-President.  By  that 
time,  however,  the  new  Republican  party 
was  in  the  field,  and  the  story  of  the  campaign 
will  be  told  later. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS 

THE  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  became  law 
on  the  30th  of  May,  1854.  Within  a  month 
settlers  from  Missouri,  believing  that  the 
passage  of  the  act  meant  the  opening  of 
Kansas  Territory,  at  least,  to  slavery, 
began  moving  across  the  border  and  took 
possession  of  some  of  the  best  lands.  Out 
of  this  migration  were  presently  founded  the 
towns  of  Atchison  and  Leaven  worth,  on 
the  Missouri  River,  and  Lecompton,  fifty 
miles  west  of  the  present  Kansas  City, 
Missouri,  on  the  Kansas  River.  Few  of 
those  who  went  took  their  slaves  with  them, 
for  slave  property  was  sensitive  to  change, 
and  the  ultimate  status  of  slavery  in  the 
Territory  was  not  yet  assured.  But  freedom 
in  Kansas  would  clearly  be  a  menace  to 
slavery  in  Missouri,  especially  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  in  the  western  counties  of  that 
State  the  institution  was  not  very  profitable; 
and  it  was  desirable,  therefore,  to  take  time 
by  the  forelock. 

A  similar  migration  from  the  free  States, 
especially  from  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Iowa, 

187 


188    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

set  in  about  the  same  time.  In  April  the 
Massachusetts  Emigrant  Aid  Company  was 
incorporated,  with  the  object  of  organizing 
and  aiding  the  migration  of  free  State 
settlers  to  Kansas.  In  February,  1855,  the 
name  was  changed  to  the  New  England 
Emigrant  Aid  Company.  The  leading  spirit 
in  this  enterprise  was  Eli  Thayer,  an  enthu 
siastic  abolitionist  of  Worcester.  The  first 
president  of  the  company  was  John  Carter 
Brown,  the  foremost  merchant  of  Providence, 
Rhode  Island;  and  among  its  directors  and 
active  members  were  Amos  Lawrence,  John 
Lowell,  and  Nathan  Durfee,  wealthy  and 
influential  manufacturers  of  Massachusetts; 
Dr.  Samuel  G.  Howe,  a  pioneer  worker  for 
the  education  of  the  blind;  Edward  Everett 
Hale,  then  a  minister  at  Worcester;  Henry 
Wilson,  later  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States;  and  Professor  Benjamin  Silliman  of 
Yale  College,  the  geologist.  Horace  Greeley 
gave  the  movement  efficient  aid  in  the  col 
umns  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  which  he 
edited,  as  did  Richard  Hildreth,  the  historian, 
in  the  Boston  Daily  Advertiser. 

Contrary  to  the  Missourians,  who  assumed 
that  Kansas  was  already  given  over  to 
slavery,  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  taking 
popular  sovereignty  for  whatever  it  might 
prove  to  be  worth,  undertook  to  make 
Kansas  a  free  State  by  planting  in  the  Terri 
tory  a  predominant  anti-slavery  popula- 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS    189 

tion.  Great  care  was  taken  in  the  selection 
of  emigrants,  and  liberal  provision  was  made 
for  their  transportation  and  early  main 
tenance.  Farming  implements,  tools,  build 
ing  materials,  and  a  printing  press  were 
among  the  facilities  furnished;  to  which 
were  presently  added,  under  stress  of  cir 
cumstances,  Sharpe's  rifles.  By  July,  1855, 
some  1,400  persons  had  been  sent  to  Kansas, 
at  a  cost  of  about  $140,000.  The  town  of 
Lawrence,  forty  miles  west  of  the  border, 
became  the  headquarters  of  the  free  State 
men.  The  representative  of  the  company  in 
Kansas  was  Dr.  Charles  Robinson,  destined 
to  play  for  more  than  thirty  years  a  promi 
nent  part  in  the  history  of  the  State. 

In  October  Andrew  H.  Reeder  of  Penn 
sylvania  was  appointed  by  President  Pierce 
governor  of  Kansas  Territory.  Reeder  was 
a  man  of  ability  and  integrity,  and  although 
friendly  to  the  South  and  suspicious  of  the 
Emigrant  Aid  Company,  was  determined 
that  popular  sovereignty  should  be  given 
a  fair  trial.  He  was  not  long  in  learning  the 
view  taken  of  the  matter  by  the  proslavery 
element.  On  the  day  appointed  for  the 
election  of  a  territorial  delegate  to  Congress, 
November  29,  the  proslavery  vote  in  Kansas 
was  reinforced  by  over  1,700  Missourians, 
who  rode  across  the  border  to  participate 
in  the  election.  The  free  State  men,  for 
the  most  part,  did  not  vote.  The  delegate 


190    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

chosen,  J.  W.  Whitfield,  an  Indian  agent 
and  a  Tennessean,  was  promptly  admitted 
to  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Representatives  at 
Washington. 

The  first  election  of  members  of  the  terri 
torial  legislature  was  appointed  for  March 
30,  1855.  As  a  preliminary  to  the  election, 
a  census  was  taken  which  showed  a  total 
population  of  8,601,  of  whom  2,905  were 
entitled  to  vote.  A  majority  of  the  voters 
had  come  from  slaveholding  States.  On 
the  morning  of  election  day  "an  unkempt, 
sun-dried,  blatant,  picturesque  mob  of  five 
thousand  Missourians,  with  guns  upon  their 
shoulders,  revolvers  stuffing  their  belts, 
bowie-knives  protruding  from  their  boot- 
tops,  and  generous  rations  of  whiskey  in 
their  wagons,"1  crossed  the  border,  took 
possession  of  all  the  polling  places  save  one, 
and  furnished  more  than  seventy-five  per 
cent  of  the  6,307  votes  returned. 

Four  days  only  were  allowed  for  filing 
protests.  The  "border  ruffians"  openly 
threatened  death  to  the  signers  of  such  pro 
tests,  and  let  Reeder  know  that  he  would  be 
given  fifteen  minutes  in  which  to  decide 
whether  or  not  he  would  give  certificates  of 
election  to  those  who  had  the  most  votes, 
or  be  shot.  "The  scene  in  the  executive 
chamber,"  writes  Mr.  Rhodes,  "when  the 
governor  canvassed  the  returns,  was  an 

1  Spring,  Kansas,  44. 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS     191 

apt  illustration  of  the  result  of  the  Douglas 
doctrine,  when  put  in  force  by  rude  people 
in  a  new  country,  and  when  a  question  had 
to  be  decided  upon  which  the  passions  of 
men  were  excited  to  an  intense  degree.  The 
thirty-nine  members  who,  on  the  face  of 
the  returns,  were  elected  were  seated  on 
one  side  of  the  room,  the  governor  and 
fourteen  friends  on  the  other.  All  were 
armed  to  the  teeth.  Reeder's  pistols,  cocked, 
lay  on  the  table  by  the  side  of  the  papers 
relating  to  the  elections."  On  technicali 
ties  the  governor  was  able  to  reject  the 
returns  from  seven  districts  from  which 
protests  had  been  received,  and  order  new 
elections;  to  those  apparently  chosen  else 
where  he  issued  certificates.1 

The  legislature  met  at  Pawnee,  July  2, 
with  a  roll  of  twenty-eight  proslavery  and 
eleven  free  State  members.  Two  of  the  free 
State  members  resigned,  and  the  other  nine 
were  shortly  unseated.  At  an  adjourned 
session  at  Shawnee  Mission,  July  16,  a  body 
of  laws  based  upon  those  of  Missouri  was 
hastily  adopted,  with  the  addition  of  strin 
gent  provisions  for  the  protection  of  slavery. 
Reeder,  his  opinions  on  slavery  and  popular 
sovereignty  revolutionized,  encountered  the 
bitter  and  relentless  hostility  of  the  Missouri 
element,  who  demanded  his  removal  from 
office.  President  Pierce,  who  professed 

1  Rhodes,  United  States,  I,  364. 


192    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

"harassing  anxiety"  at  what  had  taken 
place  in  Kansas,  yielded  to  the  pressure  of 
Reeder's  enemies,  among  them  Jefferson 
Davis  of  Mississippi,  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  on  August  15  the  governor  was  removed. 

The  free  State  party,  led  by  Robinson, 
whose  experience  in  California  a  few  years 
before  now  stood  him  in  good  stead,  de 
nounced  the  Pawnee  legislature  as  illegal, 
and  began  arming  themselves.  The  removal 
of  Reeder  presently  showed  how  the  federal 
administration  stood.  On  October  9  a  free 
State  convention  met  at  Topeka  and  chose 
Reeder  as  delegate  to  Congress.  A  few  days 
before,  the  proslavery  legislature  had  re- 
elected  Whitfield.  On  the  23d  of  October  a 
free  State  constitutional  convention  assem 
bled  at  Topeka,  and  drew  up  a  constitution 
prohibiting  slavery.  December  15,  by  a  vote 
of  1,731  to  46,  the  constitution  was  ratified, 
and  in  January  Robinson  was  elected  gover 
nor.  Kansas  thus  had  two  rival  govern 
ments,  each  of  which  denounced  the  other 
as  illegal.  For  the  time  being,  at  least, 
might  made  right:  every  man  went  armed, 
and  the  cocking  of  a  rifle  or  revolver  was 
likely  to  be  the  prelude  to  conversation  with 
a  stranger. 

When  the  Thirty-third  Congress  met, 
December  4,  1854,  the  breakdown  of  the 
old  party  lines  at  once  became  apparent. 
There  was  a  safe  Democratic  majority  in 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS     193 

the  Senate.  The  House  contained  117 
"Anti-Nebraska  men,"  79  Democrats,  and 
37  proslavery  Whigs  or  Know-Nothings, 
all  but  three  of  the  latter  from  the  South. 
Although  the  Anti-Nebraska  men  had  a 
majority,  many  of  them  were  Know-Noth- 
ings,  and  no  candidate  for  Speaker  could 
command  their  united  support.  After  a 
contest,  prolonged  to  130  ballots,  between 
Richardson,  the  Democratic  candidate,  and 
Banks  of  Massachusetts,  who  had  been 
elected  as  a  Know-Nothing  but  had  later 
identified  himself  with  the  new  Republican 
movement,  it  was  agreed  to  elect  by  a 
plurality,  and  on  February  2  Banks  was 
chosen.  The  long  struggle,  turning  as  it  did 
on  the  attitude  of  parties  and  leaders  to 
wards  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  greatly 
embittered  feeling  and  augured  ill  for  con 
gressional  treatment  of  the  Kansas  question. 
Pierce,  waiting  for  the  settlement  of  the 
speakership  contest,  held  back  his  annual 
message  until  the  last  day  of  the  year. 
Serious  diplomatic  differences  with  Great 
Britain  over  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
and  the  Crimean  War  were  pending,  and  he 
was  anxious  to  make  public  his  message  and 
the  accompanying  correspondence.  On  the 
question  of  the  Kansas  troubles  he  offered 
only  a  single  short  paragraph.  "In  the 
Territory  of  Kansas,"  he  wrote,  "there  have 
been  acts  prejudicial  to  good  order,  but  as 


194    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

yet  none  have  occurred  under  circum 
stances  to  justify  the  interposition  of  the 
Federal  Executive."  Should  there  be  organ 
ized  resistance  to  federal  or  territorial  law, 
he  would  be  bound  to  suppress  it.  He 
trusted,  however,  that  "the  occurrence  of 
any  such  untoward  event  will  be  prevented 
by  the  sound  sense  of  the  people  of  the 
Territory." 

The  message,  read  to  the  Senate  but  not 
to  the  House,  was  of  course  written  for 
presentation  at  the  beginning  of  the  session. 
By  the  time  it  was  sent  in,  however,  the  two 
factions  in  Kansas  had  come  near  to  an 
armed  clash.  The  murder  of  a  free  State 
settler  by  a  proslavery  squatter,  as  the  out 
come  of  a  quarrel,  had  been  followed  by  the 
arrest  of  one  Branson,  charged  with  threat 
ening  the  life  of  one  of  the  accomplices.  A 
band  of  free  State  men  intercepted  the 
sheriff,  Jones,  and  his  posse  on  the  way  to 
Lecompton,  the  territorial  capital,  and  com 
pelled  the  release  of  Branson. 

Jones  hurried  off  a  call  for  help  to  Missouri, 
and  dispatched  a  vivid  account  of  the  affair 
to  Shannon,  the  newly  appointed  governor 
of  the  Territory.  In  a  few  days  some 
twelve  hundred  men  were  encamped  along 
the  Wakarusa  stream,  near  Lawrence.  The 
town  had  been  fortified  and  six  hundred 
men  were  ready  to  defend  it.  Shannon 
appealed  for  support  to  the  commander  of 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOE  KANSAS     195 

the  United  States  troops  at  Fort  Leaven- 
worth,  Colonel  Sumner,  but  Sumner  refused 
to  act  without  orders  from  Washington. 
Shannon  was  finally  induced  to  enter  Law 
rence,  and  on  learning  the  true  state  of  the 
case  prevailed  upon  the  Missourians  to 
withdraw.  The  bloodless  "Wakarusa  war" 
ended  with  the  victory  of  the  free  State 
men.  On  December  15  came  the  vote  on 
the  Topeka  constitution,  and  a  month  later 
the  election  of  Robinson  as  governor. 

January  24,  in  a  special  message,  Pierce 
reviewed  at  length  the  course  of  events  in 
Kansas.  He  charged  Reeder  with  dilatori- 
ness,  and  with  personal  misconduct  which 
necessitated  his  removal;  upheld  the  pro- 
slavery  legislature  and  its  acts;  condemned 
the  free  State  agitation  as  revolutionary; 
declared  that  it  would  be  his  "imperative 
duty  to  exert  the  whole  power  of  the  Federal 
Executive  to  support  public  order  in  the 
Territory,  to  vindicate  its  laws,  whether 
federal  or  local,  against  all  attempts  of 
organized  resistance,  and  so  to  protect  its 
people  in  the  establishment  of  their  own 
institutions,  undisturbed  by  encroachment 
from  without."  On  the  other  hand,  he 
recommended  that  provision  be  made  by 
Congress,  as  soon  as  the  population  of  the 
Territory  warranted,  for  holding  a  consti 
tutional  convention  preparatory  to  the  ad 
mission  of  Kansas  as  a  State. 


196    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

If  the  thinly  veiled  allusions  of  the  message 
meant  anything,  they  meant  that  federal 
troops  would  be  used,  if  necessary,  to  up 
hold  the  proslavery  government.  The  refer 
ence  to  "encroachment  from  without"  was 
to  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company.  The  refer 
ence  was  made  still  clearer  by  a  proclama 
tion  of  February  11,  ordering  the  cessation 
of  unlawful  attacks  upon  the  authority  of 
the  Territory  or  of  the  United  States  therein, 
denouncing  the  activity  of  "other  persons, 
inhabitants  of  remote  States,"  who  were 
"collecting  money,  engaging  men,  and  pro 
viding  arms"  for  illegal  use;  and  threatening 
the  employment  of  military  force.  To  the 
fettered  mind  of  Franklin  Pierce  the  situa 
tion  in  Kansas  presented  no  moral  issue 
whatever,  but  only  the  bare  legal  question 
whether  or  not  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  should  be  upheld.  The 
grim  challenge  of  "War  to  the  knife,  and 
the  knife  to  the  hilt!"  was  the  answer  of 
the  free  State  men  to  Pierce's  legal  quibbling, 
and  neither  Missouri  nor  the  South  was 
loth  to  take  it  up. 

Three  days  after  the  issuance  of  Pierce's 
proclamation,  Reeder  opened  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  a  contest  for  the  seat 
occupied  by  Whitfield  as  territorial  dele 
gate.  The  House,  in  despair  at  the  opposing 
claims  of  the  two  factions,  appointed  a 
special  committee  —  John  Sherman  of  Ohio, 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS     197 

Howard  of  Michigan,  and  Mordecai  Oliver 
of  Missouri  —  to  investigate  affairs  in  Kan 
sas.  Oliver,  the  Democratic  member,  had 
participated  in  the  fraudulent  territorial 
election  in  March,  1855. 

Before  the  committee  reported,  the  Kan 
sas  question  had  taken  on  a  more  violent 
and  serious  aspect.  Great  efforts  had  been 
made  to  induce  migration  to  Kansas  from 
the  South,  and  in  April  a  company  of  280 
men  from  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and 
Alabama,  led  by  Colonel  Buford,  started 
for  the  Territory.  The  men  were  of  the 
ruffian  type  and  well  armed,  but  public 
prayer  and  a  presentation  of  Bibles  were 
sufficient,  in  some  eyes,  to  give  the  expedi 
tion  the  character  of  a  crusade.  In  the  North 
contributions  of  money  and  arms  poured  in 
upon  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  while 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  of  Brooklyn  and 
professors  of  Yale  College  joined  in  a  sub 
scription  of  Sharpe's  rifles,  thenceforward 
known  as  "Beecher's  Bibles." 

In  April  Sheriff  Jones  visited  Lawrence, 
and  with  the  aid  of  United  States  troops 
arrested  six  men.  The  grand  jury,  following 
a  charge  by  Lecompte,  the  chief-justice  of 
the  Territory,  presently  indicted  Robinson, 
Reeder,  and  other  free  State  leaders  for 
treason,  and  recommended  that  two  news 
papers  published  at  Lawrence  be  suppressed 
and  the  hotel  demolished.  On  the  llth  of 


198    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

May  the  United  States  marshal,  Donaldson, 
issued  a  proclamation  calling  upon  all  "law- 
abiding"  citizens  to  meet  at  Lecompton 
and  aid  him  in  enforcing  the  laws.  Ten 
days  later  a  body  of  750  Missourians  and 
territorial  militia  invaded  Lawrence,  de 
stroyed  the  newspaper  offices,  threw  the 
presses  and  type  into  the  river,  bombarded 
and  then  burned  the  hotel,  and  sacked  the 
town. 

This  was  on  the  21st  of  May.  The  next 
day  Preston  B.  Brooks,  a  Representative 
from  South  Carolina,  assaulted  Sumner  in 
the  Senate  chamber  at  Washington.  Sum 
ner,  in  a  two  days'  speech  published  under 
the  title  of  "The  Crime  against  Kansas," 
had  made  a  terrific  onslaught  upon  the  pro- 
slavery  Missourians  and  their  leaders,  and 
thrown  down  a  gauntlet  of  bitter  defiance 
to  the  South.  In  the  course  of  his  invective 
he  had  gone  out  of  his  way  to  make  an 
uncalled-for  and  scurrilous  attack  upon 
Senator  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  who  in 
the  course  of  debate  had  made  a  dignified 
defense  of  Atcheson,  the  Missouri  leader. 
Brooks,  who  was  a  relative  of  Butler,  entered 
the  Senate  chamber  where  Sumner  was 
writing  at  his  desk,  and  beat  him  on  the  head 
and  shoulders  with  a  heavy  cane  until 
Sumner,  covered  with  blood  and  almost 
unconscious,  fell  to  the  floor. 

A  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS     199 

outrage  reported  that  as  the  assault  had  been 
committed  by  a  member  of  the  House,  it  was 
not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Senate, 
although  it  was  "a  breach  of  the  privileges" 
of  that  body.  A  motion  in  the  House  to 
expel  Brooks  failed  from  lack  of  the  neces 
sary  two-thirds.  Brooks  justified  himself 
in  a  defiant  speech,  resigned  his  seat,  and 
was  at  once  reflected  by  his  constituents. 
Sumner,  whose  injuries  had  affected  the 
spinal  cord,  did  not  resume  his  place  in  the 
Senate  for  three  years  and  a  half.  The  Legis 
lature  of  Massachusetts,  as  an  eloquent  but 
silent  protest,  left  his  seat  unfilled  until  he 
could  return  to  occupy  it. 

The  sack  of  Lawrence  and  the  assault 
upon  Sumner,  coming  in  such  quick  succes 
sion,  shook  the  nation  profoundly.  To  many 
in  the  North  the  startling  coincidence  seemed 
hardly  accidental.  Was  this  the  meaning  of 
popular  sovereignty?  Were  these  the  means 
by  which  the  cause  of  slavery  was  hence 
forth  to  be  upheld?  Could  Franklin  Pierce 
still  survey  the  situation  in  Kansas  and 
declare,  with  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  that 
the  only  question  involved  was  that  of  the 
observance  of  federal  law? 

A  few  days  passed,  and  then  the  country 
heard  for  the  first  time  the  name  of  John 
Brown.  A  native  of  Connecticut,  growing 
to  manhood  in  the  rough  life  of  the  Ohio 
frontier,  Brown  had  been,  with  varying 


200    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

degrees  of  failure,  a  tanner,  surveyor,  farmer, 
land  speculator,  and  wool  merchant.  Just 
how  or  when  his  mind  fastened  upon  slavery 
as  the  greatest  of  all  evils  is  not  certain,  but 
after  1845  he  seems  to  have  come  more  and 
more  to  the  conviction  that  slavery  must 
be  destroyed  by  force,  and  that  he  was  in 
some  way  divinely  called  to  lead  the  attack. 
A  Puritan  of  the  Puritans,  the  keynote  of 
his  life  was  religious  and  moral  zeal;  and 
while  his  fanatical  and  bloodthirsty  acts 
suggest  an  unsound  mind,  his  plans  were 
formed  and  carried  out  with  coolness  and 
intrepidity. 

Brown  went  to  Kansas  in  the  autumn  of 
1855.  Some  of  his  family  had  already  pre 
ceded  him,  and  had  settled  at  Osawatomie, 
not  far  from  the  Missouri  border.  Here  he 
enrolled  himself  in  the  territorial  militia  and 
was  made  a  captain.  The  peace  which  ended 
the  "Wakarusa  war"  was  not  to  his  liking, 
and  the  news  of  the  attack  upon  Lawrence 
was  a  final  summons  to  draw  the  sword. 
Five  free  State  men,  as  he  reckoned  it, 
had  been  wantonly  killed  thus  far,  and  noth 
ing  less  than  the  sacrifice  of  an  equal  number 
of  the  proslavery  party  would  suffice. 

Scattered  along  the  banks  of  the  Pot- 
awatomie  creek  were  a  number  of  families 
of  proslavery  squatters,  neither  better  nor 
worse  than  the  average  of  their  class.  On 
the  night  of  Saturday,  May  24,  Brown  and 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS     201 

seven  others,  including  four  of  his  sons  and 
a  son-in-law,  fell  upon  them;  and  five  bodies 
found  the  next  day,  shot,  stabbed,  and 
mutilated  with  cutlasses,  testified  to  the 
terrible  character  of  this  new  opponent  of 
slavery.  "Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood, 
by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed,"  "without 
the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission": 
these  were  favorite  texts,  speaking  to  him 
the  awful  judgments  of  God.  The]  cold 
blooded  killing  of  five  enemies  of  freedom 
was  to  John  Brown  a  righteous  act;  and 
although  he  later  admitted  that  people  were 
not  then  ready  for  "such  hard  blows,"  he 
felt  neither  regret  nor  remorse. 

The  free  State  leaders  denounced  the 
outrage  and  repudiated  Brown,  while  the 
border  ruffians,  instead"  of  being  awed,  were 
made  only  the  more  furious.  As  a  blow 
for  freedom  in  Kansas,  the  "Potawatomie 
massacre"  was  a  failure.  At  the  call  of 
Governor  Shannon,  United  States  dragoons 
took  the  field,  compelled  Brown  to  release 
some  prisoners  he  had  taken,  and  in  July 
dispersed  the  free  State  legislature  assem 
bled  at  Topeka.  For  the  moment,  however, 
Brown  himself  was  not  interfered  with,  but 
.Robinson,  who  was  a  prisoner  at  Leaven- 
worth,  was  threatened  with  hanging,  and 
similar  threats  were  made  against  some  free 
State  men  confined  at  Lecompton. 

On  the  first  day  of  July,  1856,  the  com- 


202    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

mittee  appointed  to  investigate  affairs  in 
Kansas  made  its  report  to  the  House.  The 
two  members  of  the  majority  found  that 
each  election  thus  far  held  under  the  laws 
of  the  Territory  had  "been  carried  by  organ 
ized  invasion  from  the  State  of  Missouri"; 
that  the  proslavery  legislature  was  an  ille 
gally  constituted  body,  and  that  its  alleged 
laws  had  been  used,  as  a  general  thing,  for 
unlawful  purposes;  that  the  elections  of 
Whitfield  and  Reeder  were  alike  irregular, 
although  Reeder  received  the  greater  num 
ber  of  votes  of  resident  citizens;  that  a  fair 
election  could  be  held  only  under  the  pro 
tection  of  United  States  troops,  but  that  the 
Topeka  constitution  embodied  the  will  of 
a  majority  of  the  people.  On  most  of  these 
points  the  minority  member,  Oliver,  reported 
exactly  the  reverse.  The  House,  as  little 
able  to  see  its  way  clearly  as  it  was  before, 
unseated  Whitfield  and  then  rejected  Reed- 
er's  claim.  Apparently,  neither  territorial 
government  in  Kansas  was  regarded  as  legal 
by  the  House. 

A  bill  to  admit  Kansas  as  a  State  under 
the  Topeka  constitution  was  passed  by  the 
House,  only  to  be  rejected  by  the  Senate. 
The  House  then  added  a  "rider"  to  the  army 
appropriation  bill,  virtually  forbidding  the 
use  of  troops  by  the  President  to  enforce 
the  acts  of  the  proslavery  legislature.  A 
deadlock  followed,  and  on  August  18  Con- 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS     203 

gress  adjourned  without  passing  the  army 
bill.  Pierce  at  once  called  an  extra  session, 
and  on  the  30th,  after  further  wrangling, 
the  House  receded  and,  by  the  narrow  major 
ity  of  three  votes,  passed  the  army  bill  with 
out  the  rider. 

The  further  history  of  the  Kansas  struggle 
is  intertwined  with  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  the 
rise  of  the  Republican  party  and  the  election 
of  1856,  and  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates;  but 
its  main  points  may  here  be  separately  traced. 

Following  the  dispersal  of  the  free  State 
legislature  at  Topeka,  in  July,  1856,  the 
proslavery  legislature  called  a  constitutional 
convention  at  Lecompton.  The  consti 
tution  framed  by  that  convention  in  Sep 
tember,  1857,  affirmed  the  right  of  property 
in  slaves,  forbade  their  emancipation  with 
out  the  consent  of  their  owners,  bound  civil 
officers  to  the  enforcement  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act,  and  prohibited  the  residence  of 
free  negroes  in  the  State.  The  vote  on  the 
constitution  was  to  be  "constitution  with 
slavery,"  or  "constitution  with  no  slavery." 
If  the  majority  of  votes  should  be  for  the 
constitution  "with  no  slavery,"  then  the 
article  relating  to  slavery  was  to  be  stricken 
out,  and  slavery  should  not  exist  in  Kansas. 
The  right  of  property  in  slaves  already  in 
the  Territory,  however,  was  not  to  be 
impaired. 


204    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

The  free  State  men  pointed  out  that,  even 
if  the  constitution  "with  no  slavery"  were 
adopted,  the  provisions  relating  to  fugitives 
and  free  negroes  would  not  be  affected, 
for  the  reason  that  those  provisions  were  not 
contained  in  the  article  relating  to  slavery. 
They  accordingly  denounced  the  action  of 
the  convention  as  a  fraud,  and  refused  to 
vote.  As  a  result,  the  constitution  "with 
slavery"  was  ratified,  December  21,  by  a 
vote  of  6143  to  589. 

Governor  Walker,  who  had  taken  office 
in  November,  urged  that  the  action  of  the 
free  State  men  was  a  mistake;  and  as  that 
party,  by  voting  at  the  regular  election,  had 
got  control  of  the  legislature,  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  was  again  submitted,  and 
buried  under  an  adverse  majority  of  more 
than  10,000.  With  the  capture  of  the  regular 
legislature  by  the  free  State  party,  the  so- 
called  Topeka  government  under  Robinson, 
which  had  all  the  while  been  maintained, 
came  to  an  end. 

In  February,  1858,  a  copy  of  the  Lecomp- 
ton  constitution  was  laid  before  Congress 
by  President  Buchanan,  and  on  March  23 
the  Senate  voted  to  admit  Kansas  as  a 
State.  Douglas,  who  had  long  since  ceased 
to  approve  the  conduct  of  the  proslavery 
faction,  opposed  the  arguments  of  President 
Buchanan  in  favor  of  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution  and  voted  in  the  negative,  de- 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS     205 

daring  in  a  speech  that  whether  or  not  the 
constitution  was  a  good  one  "is  none  of  my 
business,  and  none  of  yours,"  and  that  even 
an  unexceptionable  constitution  ought  not 
to  be  forced  upon  the  people. 

Both  branches  of  Congress  were  Demo 
cratic,  but  the  House  substituted  for  the 
Senate  measure  a  bill  resubmitting  the  Le- 
compton  constitution  to  popular  vote.  A 
compromise  was  finally  effected.  An  amend 
ment  offering  to  Kansas  a  large  grant  of 
public  lands,  as  a  substitute  for  the  land 
provisions  of  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
was  to  be  submitted  to  popular  vote  in  the 
Territory.  If  it  was  accepted,  then  Kansas 
was  forthwith  to  be  received  into  the  Union 
with  the  Lecompton  constitution.  If  it 
was  rejected,  Kansas  was  to  remain  a  Terri 
tory  until  its  population  was  sufficient  to 
entitle  it  to  a  representative  in  Congress. 
That  number  in  1860,  the  next  census  year, 
was  127,381,  and  the  population  of  Kansas 
in  that  year  107,206. 

August  3  the  people  of  Kansas,  by  a 
vote  of  11,088  to  1788,  rejected  the  bribe 
which  Congress  had  offered  them.  In  July, 
1859,  a  convention  at  Wyandotte  drew  up 
a  free  State  constitution  which  was  ratified 
by  a  large  popular  vote  in  October.  Under 
that  constitution  Kansas,  January  29,  1861, 
became  at  last  a  member  of  the  Union. 

An  historian  has  aptly  characterized  the 


206    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Kansas  struggle  as  the  prelude  to  the  war 
for  the  Union.  The  episode  stands,  so  to 
speak,  as  the  watershed  dividing  the  period 
when  slavery  struggled  for  equal  rights 
with  freedom  in  the  Union,  from  the  period 
in  which  the  Union  itself  struggled  to  con 
tinue  whole.  Every  device  known  to  poli 
tics,  from  sober  argument  to  assault,  murder, 
and  open  war,  was  employed  to  force  slavery 
upon  the  Territory.  That  the  attempt 
failed  showed  the  intensity  of  moral  convic 
tion  in  the  North  on  the  subject,  and  the 
determination  that  no  more  slave  States 
should  enter  the  Union.  And  the  South 
was  as  determined  as  the  North.  The  men 
who  lived  through  the  months  of  border 
warfare  in  Kansas  Territory  were  under  no 
illusions  regarding  their  opponents,  so  far 
as  a  willingness  to  resort  to  force  was  con 
cerned.  When  the  South  seceded,  Kansas, 
at  least,  knew  that  the  South  would  fight. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  unfair 
to  hold  the  South  as  a  whole  responsible  for 
the  violent  scenes  in  Kansas.  While  the 
lower  class  of  whites,  such  as  made  up 
Buford's  company,  were  ready  for  lawless 
adventure  and  even  crime,  there  were  not 
wanting  leaders  who,  though  willing  enough 
to  see  Kansas  a  slave  State,  were  keenly 
aware  that  the  advantage  might  be  won  at 
too  high  a  price.  The  South  felt  that  it  had 
in  slavery  a  great  principle  at  stake,  for 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS    207 

which  it  was  prepared  to  struggle  hard;  but 
it  was  not  yet  prepared  to  set  law  and  the 
Constitution  at  defiance,  and  rule  only  by 
might.  Nor  were  all  who  fought  for  freedom 
in  Kansas  unsullied  patriots,  actuated  solely 
by  high  moral  motives.  On  both  sides  the 
gross  and  sordid  blended  inextricably  with 
the  noble,  the  reasoned,  and  the  ideal. 

Why,  then,  did  the  struggle  ever  take 
place,  and  why  was  it  prolonged?  The  an 
swer  must  be  sought,  first,  in  the  mutual 
misunderstanding  of  North  and  South,  and, 
second,  in  the  predominance  of  the  moral 
over  the  political  motive.  The  Kansas 
contest  showed,  more  clearly  than  any  event 
in  American  history  thus  far,  how  com 
pletely  the  two  sections  of  the  country  had 
grown  apart,  how  irreconcilable  were  their 
social  interests,  and  how  little  effort  they 
were  disposed  to  make  to  reach  common 
ground.  And  when  satisfaction  with  the 
existing  order  was,  on  the  one  hand,  supple 
mented  by  a  determination  to  maintain 
that  order  at  all  hazards,  and,  on  the  other, 
opposed  by  the  conviction  that  the  order 
was  morally  wrong,  neither  laws  nor  Con 
stitution  could  long  prevent  the  conflict. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   NEW   REPUBLICANISM 

WHILE  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  still 
under  discussion  in  Congress,  and  before  the 
lawlessness  and  open  violence  which  were 
to  follow  upon  its  enactment  had  been  fore 
seen,  steps  were  taken  to  form  a  new  party. 
The  time  was  ripe  for  change.  The  Demo 
cratic  party,  proclaiming  as  ever  in  its  plat 
forms  its  adherence  to  State  rights  and  strict 
construction,  had  by  this  time  become  so 
identified  with  the  radical  demands  of 
slavery  as  to  make  that  issue,  in  the  eyes  of 
its  opponents  at  least,  the  only  fundamental 
one  for  which  the  party  stood.  With  the 
passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  the 
Anti-Nebraska  Democrats  could  no  longer 
stand  with  their  party  save  by  a  sacrifice  of 
principle;  and  the  Kansas  debate,  with  its 
aftermath,  made  party  affiliation  preemi 
nently  a  matter  of  principle. 

The  Whig  party,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
hopelessly  disintegrated.  A  remnant  of  its 
Southern  membership  held  together,  and  in 
the  election  of  1860  formed  the  mainstay  of 

208 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       209 

the  Constitutional  Union  party;  but  the 
majority  of  its  Southern  supporters  after 
1854  went  over  to  the  Democrats.  The 
Northern  Whigs  did,  indeed,  oppose  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  but  the 
identification  of  the  party  with  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law  made  it  impossible  to  win 
support  for  candidates  who  bore  the  old 
party  name.  The  Free  Soilers,  comprising 
in  their  membership  both  Democrats  and 
Whigs,  had  passed  their  zenith  as  a  party. 
Three  elements,  then,  —  Whigs,  Free  Soilers, 
and  Anti-Nebraska  Democrats,  —  were  ready 
to  be  combined  in  a  new  party  if  a  platform 
could  be  framed  on  which  all  could  stand. 

Unlike  European  countries  in  which  repre 
sentative  government  has  come  to  prevail, 
the  political  life  of  the  United  States  has 
never  favored  the  formation  and  continu 
ance  of  numerous  party  groups.  From  the 
beginning  of  government  under  the  Consti 
tution,  two  great  parties  have,  as  a  rule, 
divided  the  great  majority  of  the  electorate 
between  them.  Moreover,  the  fundamental 
difference  between  these  parties  has  always 
been  in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution.  With  the  defeat  of  the  Whigs, 
in  1852,  no  party  embodying  the  broad 
construction  theories  of  Hamilton,  Webster, 
and  Clay  remained  to  oppose  the  Demo 
crats;  and  this  notwithstanding  the  obvious 
fact  that  broad  construction  principles 


210    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

afforded  the  only  constitutional  ground  on 
which  the  aggressive  demands  of  slavery 
could  be  opposed. 

Herein  lay  the  opportunity  for  a  new  party. 
If  the  various  forces  opposed  to  the  further 
extension  of  slave  territory  could  be  rallied 
to  a  common  standard,  with  the  addition 
of  such  loose  construction  tenets  as  pro 
tection  or  internal  improvements,  the  con 
stitutional  principles  of  the  old  Federalists 
and  Whigs  could  be  revived  in  modern  guise, 
and  the  party  be  assured  of  vigor  and  long 
life.  To  be  sure,  it  was  asking  much  of  a 
Democrat  that  he  should  accept  what  to 
him  were  Whig  principles;  yet  it  was  not 
impossible  that  the  antislavery  Democrats, 
wholly  out  of  sympathy  as  they  were  with 
their  own  party,  might,  in  loving  slavery 
less,  love  loose  construction  more. 

At  a  State  convention  at  Jackson,  Mich 
igan,  July  6,  1854,  the  new  Republican 
party  was  launched.  The  ticket  which  it 
nominated  included  Whigs,  Free  Soilers,  and 
Democrats,  as  befitted  the  composite  mem 
bership  of  the  new  organization;  and  its 
platform  denounced  slavery  and  demanded 
the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  A  week  later  similar 
conventions  were  held  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and 
Wisconsin,  the  date  being  chosen  as  that  on 
which  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  with  its 
prohibition  of  slavery  northwest  of  the 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       211 

Ohio  River,  was  adopted.  The  Democrats, 
by  taking  up  the  name  at  once  in  the  con 
temptuous  form  of  "Black  Republicans," 
contributed  their  share  to  the  success  of  the 
new  movement. 

The  Whigs  were  not  yet  prepared  to  give 
up  their  own  organization,  and  with  the 
Know-Nothing  party  also  in  the  field,  the 
fall  elections  showed  much  crossing  of  party 
lines.  As  a  whole,  however,  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  was  pointedly  condemned  at 
the  polls.  Maine  chose  a  Republican  Legis 
lature,  which  in  turn  elected  a  Republican 
governor,  no  candidate  for  that  office  having 
been  chosen  at  the  polls.  Vermont  elected 
an  anti-Nebraska  ticket,  and  Massachusetts 
was  swept  by  the  Know-Nothings.  New 
York  chose  a  Whig  governor  by  an  insig 
nificant  plurality,  while  three-fourths  of 
its  representatives  in  Congress  were  Anti- 
Nebraska  men.  In  Pennsylvania  a  com 
bination  of  Whigs,  Free  Soil  Democrats, 
and  Know-Nothings  elected  a  Whig  governor 
on  a  platform  of  opposition  to  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act.  Ohio  and  Indiana  were  in 
the  Anti-Nebraska  column;  Illinois  forsook 
Douglas  to  the  extent  of  choosing  an  Anti- 
Nebraska  legislature  and  five  of  the  nine 
members  of  Congress;  Michigan  and  Wis 
consin  were  Republican. 

Clearly  these  were  notable  gains.  The 
mysterious  strength  and  activity  of  the 


FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Know-Nothings  was  a  disturbing  factor,  but 
as  the  candidates  of  that  party  were  opposed 
to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  their  success 
really  swelled  the  volume  of  condemnation. 
For  the  moment  parties  had  many  forms  and 
names,  but  beneath  formal  differences  was 
union  in  opposition  to  slavery  extension. 
What  the  Republicans  most  needed  was  a 
leader,  but  Seward,  who  perhaps  might  have 
hastened  their  triumph,  was  still  a  Whig. 

Before  the  year  1854  was  over,  the  Sou  them 
demand  for  more  slave  territory  had  another 
pointed  illustration.  Reference  has  already 
been  made  to  the  political  unrest  in  Cuba, 
and  the  difficulty  which  the  United  States 
encountered  in  checking  filibustering.  In 
October,  at  the  suggestion  of  Marcy,  Sec 
retary  of  State,  the  American  ministers  to 
Great  Britain,  France,  and  Spain  —  James 
Buchanan,  John  Y.  Mason,  and  Pierre 
Soule  —  met  at  Ostend,  Belgium,  and  drew 
up  a  memorial  on  the  subject  of  Cuba.  The 
memorial  urged  that  Cuba  belonged  geo 
graphically  to  the  United  States;  that  the 
peace  and  security  of  the  Union  depended 
upon  its  acquisition;  that  an  offer  of 
$100,000,000  ought  to  be  made  for  the 
island;  and  that  if  Spain  refused  to  sell, 
"then  by  every  law,  human  and  divine, 
we  shall  be  justified  in  wresting  it  from  Spain 
if  we  possess  the  power."  Marcy,  who  was 
not  prepared  for  so  extraordinary  a  pro- 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       213 

posal,  treated  it  coldly,  and  Soule,  the  prin 
cipal  author  of  the  manifesto,  presently 
resigned. 

The  presidential  campaign  of  1856  saw 
four  parties  in  the  field.  The  Northern 
Whigs  hovered  between  union  with  the 
Democrats,  to  whom  in  a  way  their  accep 
tance  of  the  Compromise  of  1850  drew  them, 
and  union  with  the  Republicans,  whose 
constitutional  views  accorded  better  with 
Whig  history.  Already  in  the  West,  save 
Ohio,  the  fusion  of  Whigs  and  Republicans 
was  practically  complete.  Most  of  the 
northern  Know-Nothings,  also,  had  joined 
the  Republicans,  but  in  the  South,  thanks 
to  Whig  recruits,  the  party  was  stronger 
than  ever.  The  Democrats,  though  torn 
within  and  without  by  the  slavery  con 
troversy,  were  still  formidable,  and  the 
party  was  the  only  one  which  as  yet  could 
call  itself  national. 

The  Know-Nothing  Convention  met  at 
Philadelphia  February  22.  Delegates  were 
present  from  all  but  four  of  the  thirty-one 
States.  After  long  and  violent  debate  a 
platform  prepared  by  the  national  council  of 
the  order  was  adopted.  The  platform  de 
clared  that  "Americans  must  rule  America;" 
demanded  that  preference  be  given  to  native- 
born  citizens  for  all  offices,  and  that  a  con 
tinuous  residence  of  twenty-one  years  be 
required  for  naturalization;  and  opposed 


214    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

any  union  between  church  and  state.  On 
the  subject  of  slavery  the  platform  was  a 
"straddle":  the  right  of  the  citizens  of  a 
Territory  "to  regulate  their  domestic  and 
social  affairs  in  their  own  mode"  was  asserted, 
at  the  same  time  that  the  administration 
was  condemned  for  repealing  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  and  for  its  "vacillating  course" 
on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  question.  Ex- 
President  Fillmore  was  nominated  for  Presi 
dent  by  the  majority  of  the  delegates.  The 
seceding  delegates,  who  had  withdrawn  from 
the  convention  in  consequence  of  the  dis 
pute  over  the  platform,  nominated  Fremont. 
The  Democrats,  who  met  at  Cincinnati, 
June  2,  came  near  to  violent  disruption 
through  the  presence  of  rival  delegations 
from  New  York,  representing  the  factions 
known  as  "hards"  and  "softs,"  and  of 
"regular"  and  "Benton"  delegates  from 
Missouri.  The  leading  candidates  were 
Pierce,  who  was  supported  by  the  South, 
Buchanan,  whose  strength  was  in  the  North, 
and  Douglas,  who  had  a  strong  popular 
hold  in  both  sections.  On  the  seventeenth 
ballot  Buchanan  was  nominated.  The  plat 
form  reaffirmed  the  resolutions  of  former 
conventions;  denounced  the  "political  cru 
sade"  of  the  Know-Nothings  against  Cath 
olics  and  foreign-born;  championed  the 
entire  congressional  program  of  1850  and 
1854  in  regard  to  slavery  and  the  Terri- 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       215 

tories;  and  demanded  that  "every  proper 
effort  be  made  to  insure  our  ascendancy  in 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico." 

The  Republicans,  who  had  held  a  pre 
liminary  convention  at  Pittsburg  on  Feb 
ruary  22,  Washington's  birthday,  met  in 
regular  convention  at  Philadelphia  on  June 
17,  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  Bunker 
Hill.  The  delegates  represented  all  the 
Northern  States,  Virginia,  the  border  States 
of  Maryland,  Delaware,  and  Kentucky, 
and  the  Territories.  Seward,  although  now 
a  Republican,  had  not  been  among  the 
founders  or  earliest  supporters  of  the  new 
party,  and  declined  to  be  a  candidate  for 
the  presidency.  Salmon  P.  Chase  of  Ohio, 
conspicuous  in  the  Senate  for  his  opposition 
to  slavery  and  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
had  been  before  his  conversion  too  prominent 
a  Democrat  to  make  a  safe  candidate.  The 
choice  fell  upon  Fremont,  already  nominated 
by  the  seceding  Know-No  things. 

The  platform  was  bold  and  explicit.  It 
denied  the  right  of  Congress,  or  of  a  terri 
torial  legislature,  or  of  any  individuals  to 
give  legal  existence  to  slavery  in  any  Terri 
tory;  affirmed  the  right  and  duty  of  Con 
gress  to  prohibit  territorial  slavery;  arraigned 
the  Pierce  administration  for  its  flagrant 
violation  of  constitutional  rights  in  Kansas; 
and  demanded  the  immediate  admission  of 
Kansas  as  a  free  State.  The  Ostend  Mani- 


216    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

festo  was  denounced  as  a  "highwayman's 
plea."  The  broad  construction  principles 
of  the  party  were  shown  in  the  demand  for 
federal  aid  in  the  construction  of  a  railway 
to  the  Pacific,  and  in  the  affirmation  of  the 
constitutionality  of  appropriations  for  inter 
nal  improvements. 

The  Whigs  mustered  delegates  from 
twenty -six  States  at  Baltimore,  September 
17,  nominated  Fillmore,  the  regular  Know- 
Nothing  candidate,  and  adopted  a  platform 
which  expressed  "the  deepest  interest  and 
anxiety"  at  "the  present  disordered  condi 
tion  of  our  national  affairs";  proclaimed 
"an  absolute  necessity  for  avoiding  geo 
graphical  parties"  as  its  "fundamental  rule 
of  political  faith";  and  declared  that  the 
only  remedy  for  the  "appalling"  situation 
was  to  support  a  candidate  pledged  to  neither 
section,  but  "holding  both  in  a  just  and 
equal  regard."  "We  are  not  called  upon  to 
discuss  the  subordinate  questions  of  adminis 
tration  in  the  exercising  of  the  constitutional 
powers  of  the  government.  It  is  enough  to 
know  that  civil  war  is  raging,  and  that  the 
Union  is  imperilled."  With  no  policy  to 
set  forth,  the  Whigs,  viewing  the  political 
confusion  which  they  had  helped  to  create, 
could  only  wring  theipr  hands  and  shed  tears. 

The  enthusiasm  of  the  campaign  rivaled 
that  of  the  famous  "log-cabin  and  hard 
cider"  contest  of  1840,  but  the  Republicans 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       217 

could  not  carry  the  election.  Fremont,  dis 
tinguished  as  an  explorer  but  with  a  dubious 
record  in  the  Mexican  War,  was  a  poor  can 
didate,  especially  for  a  new  party.  Buchanan, 
although  somewhat  discredited  by  his  con 
nection  with  the  Ostend  Manifesto,  had 
nevertheless  the  advantage  of  having  been 
out  of  the  country,  as  minister  to  England, 
during  the  Kansas  troubles.  The  popular 
vote  stood  1,838,169  for  Buchanan,  1,341,264 
for  Fremont,  and  874,534  for  Fillmore.  Of 
the  296  electoral  votes,  Buchanan  received 
174,  Fremont  114,  and  Fillmore  8.  Although 
Fillmore  received  votes  in  every  State 
except  South  Carolina,  where  the  electors 
were  still  chosen  by  the  legislature,  he  won 
the  entire  electoral  vote  of  Maryland  only. 
The  Republicans  carried  New  England, 
New  York,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and 
Iowa;  the  remaining  States,  except  Mary 
land,  voted  for  Buchanan.  The  new  Con 
gress  was  Democratic  in  both  branches. 

Pierce,  in  his  last  annual  message,  read 
the  North  a  lesson  on  the  dangers  of  dis 
union  if  aggression  on  the  rights  of  the  South 
did  not  cease;  and  elaborated  once  more 
the  familiar  constitutional  argument  against 
federal  interference  with  slavery  in  the 
Territories  or  States.  With  "unmingled 
satisfaction"  he  announced  that,  thanks  to 
the  use  of  federal  troops,  there  was  now  a 
"peaceful  condition  of  things  in  Kansas." 


218    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Relations  with  European  powers  remained 
friendly,  but  the  United  States  had  refused 
assent  to  so  much  of  the  Declaration  of 
Paris,  made  in  1856  by  representatives  of 
Russia,  France,  Great  Britain,  Austria, 
Prussia,  Sardinia,  and  Turkey,  as  provided 
for  the  abolition  of  privateering,  unless 
the  private  property,  not  contraband,  of 
belligerents  should  also  be  exempt  from 
capture  by  public  armed  vessels.  In  Cen 
tral  America  the  outlook  was  less  satis 
factory.  In  April  a  mob  at  Panama  had 
destroyed  a  considerable  amount  of  rail 
road  property,  and  killed  several  American 
citizens  and  pillaged  others;  the  govern 
ment  of  New  Granada  had  threatened  a 
heavy  tax  on  mail  crossing  the  isthmus; 
and  it  had  been  necessary  to  station  naval 
vessels  at  Panama  and  Aspinwall  to  guard 
the  railroad  which  American  capital  had 
built. 

Buchanan,  in  his  inaugural,  stole  some 
thunder  from  the  Republicans  by  urging, 
as  a  military  necessity,  the  construction  of 
a  Pacific  railway.  With  regard  to  slavery  he 
spoke  as  though  the  question,  considered 
as  a  political  issue,  was  already  settled.  As, 
in  the  recent  election,  "the  voice  of  the 
majority,  speaking  in  the  manner  prescribed 
by  the  Constitution,  was  heard,  and  instant 
submission  followed";  so  Congress,  with 
"a  happy  conception",  had  applied  "the 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM 

simple  rule  that  the  will  of  the  majority  shall 
govern,  to  the  settlement  of  the  question  of 
domestic  slavery  in  the  Territories."  The 
"difference  of  opinion"  that  had  arisen 
regarding  "the  point  of  time  when  the  people 
of  a  Territory  shall  decide  this  question  for 
themselves"  was,  happily,  "a  matter  of  but 
little  practical  importance";  besides,  it  was 
a  judicial  question  whose  decision  belonged 
to  the  Supreme  Court.  Before  that  tribunal 
the  issue  was  even  then  pending,  "and  will, 
it  is  understood,  be  speedily  and  finally 
settled";  and  in  that  decision  he,  in  com 
mon  with  all  good  citizens,  would  cheer 
fully  acquiesce. 

Buchanan  had  in  mind  the  famous  Dred 
Scott  case,  the  decision  in  which  was 
announced  March  6,  1857,  two  days  after 
the  inauguration.  The  case  had  been  twice 
argued,  in  February  and  December,  1856, 
but  the  announcement  of  the  decision  had 
been  delayed,  partly  because  of  pressure 
upon  the  Southern  members  of  the  court  to 
make  the  decision  more  comprehensive  than 
was  at  first,  apparently,  intended. 

To  those  who  believed  that  the  questions 
involved  in  the  slavery  struggle  were  cap 
able  of  judicial  settlement,  the  facts  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case  were  almost  ideal.  Dred 
Scott  was  a  negro  slave,  the  child  of  slave 
parents  imported  from  Africa.  In  1834  he 
was  taken  by  his  owner,  Dr.  Emerson,  an 


220    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

army  surgeon,  from  Missouri  to  Rock  Island, 
Illinois,  and  thence,  in  1836,  to  Fort  Snelling 
on  the  west  side  of  the  Mississippi,  within 
the  limits  of  the  Louisiana  purchase  of  1803, 
and  north  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line 
of  36°  30'.  There,  with  the  consent  of 
Emerson,  Scott  married.  In  1838  he  and 
his  family  were  brought  back  to  Missouri, 
and  held  there  in  slavery  for  the  next  nine 
years. 

In  1847  Scott  brought  suit  in  a  lower 
court  of  Missouri  to  recover  his  freedom, 
on  the  ground  of  former  residence  in  free 
territory.  The  court  gave  judgment  in  his 
favor,  but  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State 
reversed  the  decision.  In  1853,  Scott  and 
his  family  having  now  become  the  property 
of  one  Sandford  of  New  York,  he  brought 
suit  for  damages  in  the  United  States  Cir 
cuit  Court,  on  the  ground  that  he  and  his 
family  had  been  wrongfully  detained  in 
servitude.  Sandford  pleaded  that  Scott,  being 
a  slave  of  African  descent,  was  not  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Constitution,  and  hence  could  not  sue 
in  a  federal  court.  The  Circuit  Court  over 
ruled  the  plea,  but  on  other  grounds  denied 
Scott's  claim  to  freedom.  The  case,  which 
by  this  time  had  attracted  wide  attention, 
was  then  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States. 

Chief-Justice  Taney,  after  a   learned  dis- 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM 

cussion  of  law  points,  came  at  once  to  the 
question  of  citizenship.  "The  question," 
he  said,  "is  simply  this:  can  a  negro,  whose 
ancestors  were  imported  into  this  country 
and  sold  as  slaves,  become  a  member  of  the 
political  community  formed  and  brought 
into  existence  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  as  such  become  entitled 
to  all  the  rights,  and  privileges,  and  immuni 
ties  guaranteed  by  that  instrument  to  the 
citizen?"  Are  negro  slaves  as  a  class  a 
portion  of  the  "people  of  the  United  States?" 
His  conclusion  was  that  they  were  not; 
that  they  were  neither  included  nor  intended 
to  be  included  under  the  term  "citizens" 
in  the  Constitution,  and  could,  therefore, 
claim  none  of  the  rights  secured  by  that 
instrument  to  the  people. 

Taney  went  on  to  point  out  a  distinction 
between  citizenship  of  a  State  and  citizen 
ship  of  the  United  States.  The  former  a 
State  was  free  to  grant  upon  any  terms  it 
pleased,  but  it  could  not  thereby  make  its 
own  citizen  a  citizen  also  of  the  United  States. 
Only  such  persons  or  classes  of  persons  as 
were  citizens  of  the  several  States  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Consti 
tution,  and  were  intended  to  be  included  in 
its  scope,  could  avail  themselves  of  the 
"privileges  and  immunities"  of  citizens  in 
other  States.  The  practice  of  the  thirteen 
colonies,  the  language  of  the  Declaration  of 


222    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

Independence,  the  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution,  and  the  legislation  of  the  States, 
as  cited  by  Taney,  all  showed  that  it  was  not 
the  intention  of  the  States,  when  framing  the 
Constitution,  to  reckon  negroes  as  citizens 
either  of  the  States  or  of  the  new  Union. 

To  the  historical  argument  Taney  added 
a  weighty  practical  one.  If,  he  urged,  the 
States  had  intended  to  make  the  negro  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  in  1787,  and  en 
titled,  consequently,  to  the  "privileges  and 
immunities"  of  a  citizen  in  every  other  State, 
"it  would  give  to  persons  of  the  negro  race, 
who  were  recognized  as  citizens  in  any  one 
State  of  the  Union,  the  right  to  enter  every 
other  State  whenever  they  pleased,  singly 
or  in  companies,  without  pass  or  passport 
and  without  obstruction,  to  sojourn  there  as 
long  as  they  pleased,  to  go  where  they  pleased 
at  every  hour  of  the  day  or  night  without 
molestation,  unless  they  committed  some 
violation  of  law  for  which  a  white  man  would 
be  punished;  and  it  would  give  them  the 
full  liberty  of  speech  in  public  and  in  pri 
vate  upon  all  subjects  upon  which  its  own 
citizens  might  speak;  to  hold  public  meetings 
upon  political  affairs,  and  to  keep  and  carry 
arms  wherever  they  went." 

Here  the  court  should  have  stopped. 
Having  found  that  Scott  was  not  a  citizen 
of  Missouri  within  the  meaning  of  the  con 
stitution,  and  consequently  not  entitled  to 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       223 

sue  in  a  federal  court,  it  should  have  re 
manded  the  case  to  the  Circuit  Court  with 
direction  to  dismiss  it  for  want  of  juris 
diction.  What  was  wanted  by  the  South, 
however,  was  a  judicial  opinion  on  the  con 
stitutionality  of  the  Missouri  Compromise; 
and  Taney,  with  a  great  opportunity  not 
to  be  lost,  went  on  to  consider  whether  the 
facts  in  the  case  entitled  Scott  to  freedom. 
In  other  words,  the  court,  though  having 
no  jurisdiction,  proceeded  to  say  what 
would  have  been  its  decision  if  it  had  had 
jurisdiction. 

The  constitutionality  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  hinged  upon  the  right  of  prop 
erty  in  slaves,  and  in  his  affirmation  of  that 
right  Taney  was  as  positive  and  explicit 
as  he  had  been  in  the  matter  of  citizenship. 
"The  right  of  property  in  a  slave,"  he 
declared,  "  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed 
in  the  Constitution.  .  .  .  And  no  word 
can  be  found  in  the  Constitution  which  gives 
Congress  a  greater  power  over  slave  property, 
or  which  entitles  property  of  that  kind  to 
less  protection  than  property  of  any  other 
description."  Such  being  the  case,  Congress 
could  not  validly  prohibit  the  holding  of 
such  property  in  any  part  of  the  Louisiana 
purchase,  nor  did  Scott's  residence  there 
alter  his  status  as  a  slave. 

From  the  decision  of  the  court  two  jus 
tices,  McLean  and  Curtis,  dissented.  The 


FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

opinion  of  Curtis  was  the  more  important. 
Citizens  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  could  have 
been  no  others,  he  urged,  than  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  under  the  Confederation. 
As  under  the  Confederation  the  only  citizen 
ship  was  that  which  a  State  conferred,  any 
one  who  was  then  a  citizen  of  a  State  be 
came,  ipso  facto,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  And  since,  as  he  pointed  out,  all 
free  native-born  inhabitants  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  Massachusetts,  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
and  North  Carolina,  "though  descended 
from  African  slaves,"  were  citizens  and 
even  voters;  and  since  the  Constitution  did 
not  of  its  own  motion  disfranchise  any  class 
of  persons,  it  followed  that  all  free  native- 
born  inhabitants  of  a  State,  if  citizens 
thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  as 
well. 

Having  found  that  persons  of  African 
descent  might,  if  free,  be  citizens,  Curtis 
was  at  liberty,  as  Taney  was  not,  to  exam 
ine  into  the  facts  on  which  Scott  based  his 
claim  to  freedom.  By  invoking  the  rules  of 
international  law,  which  in  this  respect  were 
part  of  the  common  law  of  Missouri,  regard 
ing  the  effect  of  residence  in  free  territory 
upon  the  status  of  a  slave;  by  pointing  out 
that  a  contract  of  marriage,  such  as  Scott, 
with  Dr.  Emerson's  consent,  had  entered 
into  at  Fort  Snelling,  was  itself  "an  effec- 


'  THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       225 

tual  act  of  emancipation;"  and  by  showing 
that  the  Constitution  imposes  no  limitation 
on  the  power  of  Congress  to  make  "needful 
rules  and  regulations"  for  a  Territory, 
Curtis  affirmed  the  freedom  of  Scott  and 
the  constitutionality  of  the  Missouri  pro 
hibition. 

On  the  question  of  the  right  of  Congress 
to  prohibit  or  regulate  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories,  Curtis  was  able  to  cite  "eight  dis 
tinct  instances,  beginning  with  the  first 
Congress  and  coming  down  to  the  year 
1848,  in  which  Congress  has  excluded  slavery 
from  the  territory  of  the  United  States;  and 
six  distinct  instances  in  which  Congress 
organized  governments  of  Territories  by 
which  slavery  was  recognized  and  con 
tinued,  beginning  also  with  the  first  Congress 
and  coming  down  to  the  year  1822.  These 
acts  were  severally  signed  by  seven  Presi 
dents  of  the  United  States,  beginning  with 
General  Washington  and  coming  regularly 
down  as  far  as  John  Quincy  Adams,  thus 
including  all  who  were  in  public  life  when  the 
Constitution  was  adopted."  And  he  added 
the  pertinent  comment  that  "if  the  practical 
construction  of  the  Constitution,  contem 
poraneously  with  its  going  into  effect,  by 
men  intimately  acquainted  with  its  history 
from  their  personal  participation  in  framing 
and  adopting  it,  and  continued  by  them 
through  a  long  series  of  acts  of  the  gravest 


FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

importance,  be  entitled  to  weight  in  the 
judicial  mind  on  a  question  of  construction, 
it  would  seem  to  be  difficult  to  resist  the 
force  of  the  acts  above  adverted  to." 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  in  considering 
the  first  part  of  Taney's  argument  and  Cur- 
tis's  dissent  from  it,  that  prior  to  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  the  nature  and  limitations 
of  citizenship  in  this  country  had  not  been 
judicially  defined.  So  far  as  definition  is 
concerned,  the  Constitution  is  silent.  What 
Taney  did  was  to  draw  a  line  between  the 
citizenship  which  a  State  may  confer  or 
recognize,  and  that  which  is  alone  recognized 
by  the  Constitution;  and  to  point  out  that 
the  one  did  not  necessarily,  and  in  the  case 
of  the  negro  could  not,  carry  with  it  the 
other.  Curtis,  on  the  other  hand,  virtually 
obliterated  such  a  distinction  by  holding 
that  all  free  native-born  citizens  of  a  State 
were  also  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

No  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  has 
ever  created  so  much  excitement,  or  been, 
perhaps,  so  much  discussed,  as  this  of  Scott 
vs.  Sandford.  Not  only  was  it  clear  that 
sectional  compromises  like  that  of  1820  were 
without  constitutional  warrant,  but  that 
popular  sovereignty  also  could  not  stand. 
If  Congress  itself  could  not  prohibit  slavery 
in  a  Territory,  neither  could  a  territorial 
legislature  do  so.  The  whole  case  which 
Douglas  had  labored  to  construct  on  the 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       227 

basis  of  the  legislation  of  1850  was  over 
thrown,  and  property  in  slaves  must  here 
after  be  accorded  the  same  measure  of  pro 
tection,  and  the  same  equality  of  right, 
throughout  the  United  States  as  other  kinds 
of  property  were  entitled  to.  As  for  the 
negro,  his  situation  was  hopeless.  The 
highest  court  in  the  land  had  decided  that 
he  was  property,  a  thing  and  not  a  person; 
that  the  laws  of  a  free  State  could  not  give 
him  freedom  because  of  any  temporary 
sojourn  within  their  jurisdiction;  and  that 
even  emancipation,  which  any  State  might 
undoubtedly  grant,  could  not  make  him  a 
citizen  within  the  meaning  of  the  Federal 
Constitution. 

The  South,  naturally,  was  elated.  Not 
only  had  its  entire  contention  been  conceded 
to  it,  but  the  ceaseless  pressure  of  Southern 
opinion  had  brought  the  court  to  its  side. 
Doubtless  a  court,  especially  in  grave  con 
stitutional  matters,  must  in  the  long  run 
be  influenced  by  the  trend  of  enlightened 
public  opinion;  it  cannot  pursue  its  course 
wholly  independent  of  what  the  majority 
of  a  community  has  come  to  believe.  Doubt 
less,  too,  Taney  and  his  associates  would 
have  resented  any  direct  or  obvious  attempt 
to  coerce  them.  But  it  was  to  their  lasting 
discredit  that,  in  a  cause  involving  long  and 
radical  sectional  controversy,  they  should 
have  sided  with  the  reactionary  minority, 


228    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

and  given  the  weight  of  their  support  to  a 
cause  which  the  moral  judgment,  not  only 
of  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  but  of  the  civilized 
world  as  well,  had  all  but  repudiated. 

To  the  Republicans,  as  to  anti-slavery 
men  of  all  political  complexions,  Taney's 
doctrine  concerning  the  negro  was  mon 
strous.  To  declare  that  negroes  "had  no 
rights  or  privileges  but  such  as  those  who 
held  the  power  and  the  government  might 
choose  to  grant  them,"  was  to  negative  all 
that  the  antislavery  agitation  had  ever  done. 
For  the  "assumption  of  authority"  which 
had  led  the  court,  in  its  dictum  regarding 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  to  violate  a 
primary  rule  of  judicial  action  and  decide  a 
question  which  was  not  properly  before  it, 
there  was  also  prompt  and  merited  condem 
nation.  With  practical  unanimity  the  anti- 
slavery  and  Republican  sentiment  of  the 
country  repudiated  the  decision,  and  de 
clared  that  it  could  not  stand. 

Repudiated  or  not,  however,  the  opinion 
of  Taney  was  the  opinion  of  the  court,  and 
as  such  was  for  the  time  being  a  part  of  the 
law  of  the  land.  The  dissenting  views  of 
Curtis,  however  much  applauded  as  the  true 
constitutional  interpretation,  were  without 
legal  force  or  effect.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Dred  Scott  case  remained  a  part  of  the  law 
of  the  land  until  the  adoption  of  the  Thir- 


THE  NEW  REPUBLICANISM       229 

teenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments,  in 
1865  and  1868,  abolished  slavery  and  settled 
the  question  of  citizenship  by  ordaining,  in 
essential  agreement  with  Curtis,  that  "all 
persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United 
States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof, 
are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
State  wherein  they  reside." 


CHAPTER  XII 

UNION   OR  DISUNION 

THE  Dred  Scott  decision  marks  a  cul 
minating  point  in  the  history  of  the  slavery 
controversy.  Between  the  claim  of  the 
South  to  full  recognition  of  the  constitutional 
right  to  hold  slaves  anywhere,  and  the  de 
mand  of  the  North  for  the  exclusion  of  slav 
ery  from  Territories  and  future  States,  there 
was,  apparently,  no  ground  for  further 
compromise.  The  South  had  fought  a  long 
and  bitter  fight,  and  had  won.  After  the 
court  had  rendered  its  decision,  hardly  a 
vestige  of  the  antislavery  contention  re 
mained.  The  practical  question  now  was, 
Would  the  North  submit?  Would  the 
antislavery  forces  abandon  their  opposition, 
now  that  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  had 
spoken,  and  be  content  with  a  Union  one- 
half  of  which  was  free  and  the  other  half 
slave?  The  reopening  of  the  slave  trade 
had  begun  to  be  discussed;  would  the  South 
push  its  advantage  by  demanding  this 
concession  also? 

Buchanan  was  not  a  man  to  meet  a  crisis. 

230 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  231 

He  had,  indeed,  been  long  in  public  life,  first 
as  Representative  from  Pennsylvania  in  Con 
gress,  then  as  Senator,  later  as  Secretary  of 
State  under  Polk,  and  finally  as  minister  to 
Great  Britain.  In  all  of  these  positions  he 
had  been  eminently  respectable,  industrious, 
painstaking,  and  courteous,  but  without 
the  smallest  evidence  of  greatness.  He  had 
consistently  opposed  both  abolition  and 
antislavery,  and  in  the  matter  of  political 
faith  was  of  the  straitest  sect  of  strict  con 
struction  Pharisees.  In  his  first  annual 
message,  when  Kansas  was  seething  over 
the  attempt  to  force  upon  it  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  he  could  conclude  a  long  and 
biassed  account  of  events  in  the  Territory 
with  the  remark:  "Kansas  has  for  some 
years  occupied  too  much  of  the  public 
attention.  It  is  high  time  this  should  be 
directed  to  far  more  important  objects." 

Neither  Dred  Scott  nor  Kansas,  however, 
could  long  be  kept  out  of  public  discussion. 
The  term  of  Douglas  as  Senator  from 
Illinois  expired  in  1859,  and  the  Legislature 
to  be  elected  in  the  fall  of  1858  would  choose 
his  successor.  Douglas,  of  course,  was  a 
candidate  for  reelection,  and  many  Republi 
cans,  believing  that  his  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty  had  insured  freedom  in  Kansas, 
favored  his  candidacy.  It  was  felt  to  be  by 
no  means  certain  that,  if  reflected,  he  would 
not,  through  some  new  alignment  of  parties, 


FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

be  the  successful  nominee  for  President  in 
1860. 

June  16,  however,  the  Republicans  in 
Illinois  nominated  Abraham  Lincoln  for 
Senator.  Lincoln  was  forty-nine  years  old. 
Born  in  Kentucky,  reared  in  poverty  and 
hardship  on  the  frontier,  self-educated, 
ungainly  in  appearance,  he  had  worked  his 
way  to  the  front  rank  at  the  Illinois  bar,  had 
been  four  times  elected  a  member  of  the 
legislature,  had  served  a  term  as  member 
of  Congress,  and  in  1854  had  been  an  unsuc 
cessful  aspirant  for  the  United  States  Senate. 
Sprung  from  the  common  people,  destined 
to  fill  in  the  popular  mind  a  place  second 
only  to  that  of  Washington,  his  strength 
lay  in  a  mind  disciplined  by  careful  reading, 
reflection,  and  mathematical  study,  in  sim 
plicity  and  purity  of  life,  in  clearness  of 
moral  vision,  and  in  a  never-failing  sense  of 
humor. 

In  a  speech  before  the  convention  accepting 
the  nomination,  Lincoln  stated  the  case,  as 
he  understood  it,  with  startling  precision. 
"  'A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand.'  I  believe  this  government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half 
free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dis 
solved  —  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall  — 
but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 
Friends  to  whom  he  submitted  the  speech 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  233 

had  objected  to  its  radicalism,  but  Lincoln 
replied  that  "this  thing  has  been  retarded 
long  enough,"  and  "the  time  has  come 
when  these  sentiments  should  be  uttered." 

The  campaign  opened  in  July.  Douglas, 
who  knew  and  fully  appreciated  his  opponent, 
did  not  share  the  opinion  of  his  Democratic 
followers  that  victory  would  be  easily  won. 
After  a  few  preliminary  speeches  a  series  of 
seven  joint  debates  was  arranged.  Douglas 
had  the  advantage  of  wide  popular  sup 
port,  but  his  open  hostility  to  the  Pierce  and 
Buchanan  administrations  had  turned  federal 
office-holders  against  him,  and  threatened  to 
disrupt  the  Democratic  party  in  the  State. 
Lincoln,  on  the  other  hand,  had  to  meet  at 
first  the  opposition  of  eastern  Republicans, 
including  Greeley  and  the  New  York  Tribune. 
Douglas  was  an  orator  and  admittedly  the 
best  debater  in  public  life.  Lincoln,  though 
the  best  jury  lawyer  in  Illinois,  was  awkward 
and  ill  at  ease  until  he  got  well  into  his  sub 
ject;  then  the  qualities  which  had  earned  for 
him  the  name  of  "Honest  Abe"  shone  out. 

At  the  opening  of  the  debate  Douglas 
charged  Lincoln  with  being  an  abolitionist, 
and  declared  that,  for  himself,  he  did  not 
believe  "that  the  Almighty  ever  intended 
the  negro  to  be  the  equal  of  the  white  man." 
Lincoln,  in  reply,  denied  that  he  had  any 
purpose  of  introducing  political  and  social 
equality  between  the  races,  believing  that 


FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

be  the  successful  nominee  for  President  in 
1860. 

June  16,  however,  the  Republicans  in 
Illinois  nominated  Abraham  Lincoln  for 
Senator.  Lincoln  was  forty-nine  years  old. 
Born  in  Kentucky,  reared  in  poverty  and 
hardship  on  the  frontier,  self-educated, 
ungainly  in  appearance,  he  had  worked  his 
way  to  the  front  rank  at  the  Illinois  bar,  had 
been  four  times  elected  a  member  of  the 
legislature,  had  served  a  term  as  member 
of  Congress,  and  in  1854  had  been  an  unsuc 
cessful  aspirant  for  the  United  States  Senate. 
Sprung  from  the  common  people,  destined 
to  fill  in  the  popular  mind  a  place  second 
only  to  that  of  Washington,  his  strength 
lay  in  a  mind  disciplined  by  careful  reading, 
reflection,  and  mathematical  study,  in  sim 
plicity  and  purity  of  life,  in  clearness  of 
moral  vision,  and  in  a  never-failing  sense  of 
humor. 

In  a  speech  before  the  convention  accepting 
the  nomination,  Lincoln  stated  the  case,  as 
he  understood  it,  with  startling  precision. 
"  'A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand.'  I  believe  this  government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half 
free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dis 
solved  —  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall  — 
but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 
Friends  to  whom  he  submitted  the  speech 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  233 

had  objected  to  its  radicalism,  but  Lincoln 
replied  that  "this  thing  has  been  retarded 
long  enough,"  and  "the  time  has  come 
when  these  sentiments  should  be  uttered." 

The  campaign  opened  in  July.  Douglas, 
who  knew  and  fully  appreciated  his  opponent, 
did  not  share  the  opinion  of  his  Democratic 
followers  that  victory  would  be  easily  won. 
After  a  few  preliminary  speeches  a  series  of 
seven  joint  debates  was  arranged.  Douglas 
had  the  advantage  of  wide  popular  sup 
port,  but  his  open  hostility  to  the  Pierce  and 
Buchanan  administrations  had  turned  federal 
office-holders  against  him,  and  threatened  to 
disrupt  the  Democratic  party  in  the  State. 
Lincoln,  on  the  other  hand,  had  to  meet  at 
first  the  opposition  of  eastern  Republicans, 
including  Greeley  and  the  New  York  Tribune. 
Douglas  was  an  orator  and  admittedly  the 
best  debater  in  public  life.  Lincoln,  though 
the  best  jury  lawyer  in  Illinois,  was  awkward 
and  ill  at  ease  until  he  got  well  into  his  sub 
ject;  then  the  qualities  which  had  earned  for 
him  the  name  of  "Honest  Abe"  shone  out. 

At  the  opening  of  the  debate  Douglas 
charged  Lincoln  with  being  an  abolitionist, 
and  declared  that,  for  himself,  he  did  not 
believe  "that  the  Almighty  ever  intended 
the  negro  to  be  the  equal  of  the  white  man." 
Lincoln,  in  reply,  denied  that  he  had  any 
purpose  of  introducing  political  and  social 
equality  between  the  races,  believing  that 


234    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

there  was  "a  physical  difference  between 
the  two  which  .  .  .  will  probably  forever 
forbid  their  living  together  upon  the  footing 
of  perfect  equality."  "But,"  he  added,  "I 
hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  there  is 
no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not 
entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enum 
erated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  — 
the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness."  The  natural  bonds  that  held 
the  Union  together  were  many,  but  slavery 
had  always  been  "an  apple  of  discord,  and 
an  element  of  division  in  the  house." 

A  week  later  each  candidate  searchingly 
questioned  the  other.  Lincoln  declared  that 
he  was  not  committed  to  the  abolition  of 
the  domestic  slave  trade  or  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  nor  to  the  uncondi 
tional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law;  but 
that  he  did  believe  that  Congress  could  and 
should  exclude  slavery  from  the  Terri 
tories.  To  Douglas,  in  reply,  he  propounded 
the  direct  question  as  to  whether  the  people 
of  a  Territory  could,  "in  any  lawful  way, 
against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits  prior 
to  the  formation  of  a  State  constitution." 
Douglas,  whose  whole  argument  involved 
the  attempt  to  harmonize  popular  sover 
eignty  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  declared 
that  the  future  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
on  the  abstract  question  was  immaterial, 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  235 

and  that  "the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a 
slave  Territory  or  a  free  Territory  is  perfect 
and  complete  under  the  Nebraska  bill." 
In  other  words,  since  the  court  had  not 
passed  judgment  directly  upon  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act,  the  slavery  doctrine  of  that 
law  was  still  intact. 

One  further  extract  must  suffice.  The 
real  issue,  declared  Lincoln,  is  not  that  of 
constitutional  theory  or  legal  interpretation, 
but  the  right  or  wrong  of  slavery.  "It 
is  the  eternal  struggle  between  these  two 
principles  —  right  and  wrong  —  throughout 
the  world.  They  are  the  two  principles 
which  have  stood  face  to  face  from  the 
beginning  of  time,  and  will  ever  continue 
to  struggle.  The  one  is  the  common  right 
of  humanity,  and  the  other  the  divine  right 
of  kings.  .  .  .  It  is  the  same  spirit  that 
says,  'You  work  and  toil  and  earn  bread, 
and  I'll  eat  it.'  No  matter  in  what  shape  it 
comes,  whether  from  the  mouth  of  a  king 
who  seeks  to  bestride  the  people  of  his  own 
nation  and  live  by  the  fruit  of  their  labor,  or 
from  one  race  of  men  as  an  apology  for  en 
slaving  another,  it  is  the  same  tyrannical 
principle." 

The  senatorial  campaign,  lasting  for  more 
than  three  months,  was  the  most  exciting 
that  Illinois  had  ever  known.  In  the  East, 
where  Lincoln  was  almost  unknown,  popular 
interest  centered  mainly  in  Douglas,  but 


236    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

the  publication  of  Lincoln's  speeches,  and 
presently  of  the  whole  debate,  stamped 
Lincoln  as  one  of  the  foremost  exponents  of 
Republican  doctrine,  though  he  had  yet 
to  draw  the  more  conservative  members  of 
the  party  up  to  his  level.  By  a  majority  of 
eight  Douglas  carried  the  legislature,  but 
the  Republicans  elected  their  State  ticket. 
Buchanan  and  his  friends,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  anything  but  pleased  at  a  result 
which  apparently  assured  to  Douglas  the 
Democratic  nomination  for  President  in 
1860.  The  administrative  newspaper  organ 
at  Washington  had  denounced  both  Lincoln 
and  Douglas  as  "a  pair  of  depraved,  blus 
tering,  mischievous,  low-down  demagogues." 
Elsewhere  than  in  Illinois  the  adminis 
tration  met  reverses.  The  October  elec 
tions  of  1858  in  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Iowa  went  against  the  administration. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  month  Seward,  now 
generally  regarded  as  the  leader  of  the  Re 
publicans,  made  a  great  speech  at  Rochester, 
New  York,  denouncing  the  Democrats  for 
their  identification  with  slavery,  declaring 
that  slavery  and  freedom  were  not  only 
incongruous  but  incompatible,  and  that  the 
two  systems,  continually  coming  into  closer 
contact,  were  resulting  in  collision.  "Shall 
I  tell  you  what  this  collision  means?  They 
who  think  that  it  is  accidental,  unnecessary, 
the  work  of  interested  or  fanatical  agitators, 


UNION  OR  DISUNION         *    237 

and  therefore  ephemeral,  mistake  the  case 
altogether.  It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict 
between  opposing  and  enduring  forces,  and 
it  means  that  the  United  States  must  and 
will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either  entirely 
a  slaveholding  nation,  or  entirely  a  free- 
labor  nation." 

The  thought  was  Lincoln's,  but  its  enun 
ciation  by  Seward,  whether  he  had  reached 
his  conclusion  independently  or  not,  gave  it 
the  weight  of  a  statesman.  In  November, 
New  England,  New  York,  and  the  States  of 
the  Northwest  repudiated  the  administra 
tion  tickets,  as  did  Pennsylvania,  although 
in  the  latter  case  it  was  the  tariff  reduction 
and  panic  of  1857,  rather  than  slavery  and 
Kansas,  that  caused  the  defeat. 

As  if  to  emphasize  the  "irrepressible  con 
flict,"  the  North  continued  to  be  stirred  by 
the  execution  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
In  September,  1858,  a  slave-hunter  named 
Jennings,  searching  for  runaway  slaves  at 
Oberlin,  Ohio,  decoyed  a  negro  from  the 
town,  seized  him,  and  carried  him  to  the 
near-by  village  of  Wellington,  preparatory 
to  bringing  him  before  a  federal  commis 
sioner  for  trial.  A  crowd  of  Oberlin  men 
rescued  the  negro  and  aided  him  to  escape. 
Thirty-seven  persons,  including  a  professor 
and  several  students  of  Oberlin  College,  were 
indicted  and  tried  at  Cleveland.  Two  were 
convicted,  fined  and  imprisoned;  the  others, 


238    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

who  had  been  released  on  recognizances, 
voluntarily  went  to  jail  pending  trial.  The 
administration  at  Washington  took  a  lively 
interest  in  the  case,  but  so  strong  was  the 
public  sympathy  for  the  accused,  and  so 
serious  the  political  consequences  that  were 
likely  to  follow  if  the  matter  was  pressed, 
that  the  remaining  cases  were  presently 
dropped  and  the  prisoners  released. 

In  his  annual  message  of  December,  1858, 
Buchanan  was  able  to  inform  Congress  of 
the  settlement  of  a  serious  difficulty  in  Utah. 
The  Territory  of  Utah  had  been  occupied  by 
Mormons,  whose  industry  and  skill  had 
gone  far  to  turn  the  desert  about  Salt  Lake 
into  a  garden.  From  the  first,  however, 
there  was  friction  with  the  "Gentiles," 
or  non-Mormons,  attended  with  murders 
and  outrages.  Under  the  leadership  of 
Brigham  Young,  the  head  of  the  Mormon 
church  and  governor  of  the  Territory,  a 
despotism  was  established  which  set  at 
defiance  the  authority  of  the  United  States, 
and  in  1857  the  federal  officers  in  Utah  were 
compelled,  for  personal  safety,  to  withdraw. 
The  Mormons  were  well  armed,  supplied 
with  provisions  for  three  years,  and  ready 
if  necessary,  Young  declared,  to  "take  to 
the  mountains  and  bid  defiance  to  all  powers 
of  the  government." 

Buchanan  removed  Young,  appointed  a 
new  governor,  Gumming,  and  other  federal 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  239 

officials,  and  ordered  a  detachment  of  troops 
to  accompany  them  to  Utah.  In  Septem 
ber,  1857,  Young  issued  a  proclamation 
establishing  martial  law,  and  vacated  and 
burned  Fort  Bridger  and  Fort  Supply. 
On  October  4  the  Mormons  captured  and 
burned  three  supply  trains  and  carried  off 
several  hundred  animals.  The  troops  spent 
a  hard  winter  at  Fort  Bridger,  and  prepara 
tions  were  made  for  the  dispatch  of  a  large 
additional  force  in  the  spring.  In  April, 
hoping  to  avoid  open  war,  two  commis 
sioners  were  sent  to  Utah,  and  with  the  aid 
of  Gumming  and  the  troops  succeeded  in 
restoring  order. 

Buchanan  still  longed  for  Cuba.  His 
message  of  1858  declared  the  island  to  be 
"a  constant  source  of  injury  and  annoyance 
to  the  American  people."  With  the  slavery 
question  a  seething  ferment  on  every  hand, 
he  could  nevertheless  solemnly  urge,  as  a 
further  reason  for  acquisition,  that  Cuba 
"is  the  only  spot  in  the  civilized  world 
where  the  African  slave  trade  is  tolerated," 
and  that  "as  long  as  this  market  shall  re 
main  open  there  can  be  no  hope  for  the  civil 
ization  of  benighted  Africa . ' '  The  suggestion 
of  an  appropriation  for  the  purchase  of  the 
island,  however,  was  vigorously  resented  by 
Spain,  and  the  matter  was  presently  dropped. 

In  the  world  of  finance  and  business,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  outlook  at  the  close  of 


240    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

1858    was    favorable.      The    country    was 
recovering  from  the  effects  of  the  panic  of 

1857.  The  falling  off  of  imports,  however, 
had  brought  about  a  corresponding  reduc 
tion  of  revenue,  and  the  debt  had  been  in 
creased  by  an  issue,  in  December,  1857,  of 
$20,000,000  in  treasury  notes,  and  in  June, 

1858,  of  a  loan  of  the  same  amount.     Bu 
chanan  recommended  a  revision  of  the  tariff, 
and  urged  the  advantage  of  specific  duties 
in  place  of  the  existing  system. 

In  October,  1859,  the  country  was  startled 
by  the  news  of  the  John  Brown  raid.  Brown 
had  returned  from  Kansas  in  January,  1858, 
and  on  February  22,  at  the  house  of  Gerritt 
Smith  at  Peterboro',  New  York,  had  un 
folded  to  Smith  and  Frank  Sanborn  his 
plan  to  attack  slavery  by  force.  He  pro 
posed  to  establish  himself  in  the  Virginia 
mountains,  and  with  the  aid  of  slaves  who 
would  flock  to  him,  and  of  twelve  recruits 
who  were  drilling  in  Iowa,  to  organize  a 
government,  levy  war,  and  eventually, 
through  amendment  of  the  Constitution, 
abolish  slavery.  Orders  had  already  been 
placed  for  arms,  and  with  the  assurance  of 
eight  hundred  dollars  he  was  prepared  to 
begin  operations  in  May. 

Sanborn  laid  the  matter  before  Theodore 
Parker  and  other  Boston  friends,  and  a 
fund  of  one  thousand  dollars  was  raised. 
The  threatened  defection  of  a  follower  in 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  241 

Iowa,  however,  delayed  the  execution  of 
the  plan,  and  it  was  not  resumed  until  the 
spring  of  1859.  Then,  with  a  fund  now 
increased  to  about  four  thousand  dollars, 
Brown  rented  two  farmhouses  about  four 
miles  from  the  United  States  arsenal  at 
Harper's  Ferry,  Virginia.  Here  he  cau 
tiously  collected  arms  and  ammunition, 
and  a  force  of  thirteen  whites  and  five 
negroes. 

On  the  night  of  Sunday,  October  16,  the 
attack  was  made.  The  arsenal,  armory, 
and  rifle  works,  none  of  which  were  guarded 
by  troops,  were  seized  and  occupied;  the 
mail  train  to  Baltimore  was  stopped  for 
several  hours,  and  a  colored  porter  shot; 
and  several  neighboring  slaveholders,  among 
them  a  descendant  of  Washington,  were 
arrested  and  brought  in  as  prisoners.  At 
daybreak,  when  the  citizens  of  the  town 
discovered  the  situation,  an  attack  upon  the 
invaders  began,  the  militia  were  called  out, 
and  the  telegraph  carried  the  news  far  and 
wide.  On  Monday  evening  a  company  of 
marines,  under  command  of  Col.  Robert  E. 
Lee,  reached  Harper's  Ferry.  Out  of  regard 
to  the  safety  of  the  prisoners  held  by  Brown, 
an  attack  upon  the  engine  house,  in  which 
the  remnant  of  Brown's  forces  had  taken 
refuge,  was  delayed  until  morning;  then 
the  door  was  broken  in,  and  the  defenders 
quickly  overpowered. 

Shaken  as  was  Virginia  and  the  South 


244    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

dustry  and  the  Southern  people,  and  ought 
to  be  abolished. 

A  committee  of  the  House  spent  three 
months  in  investigating  the  charge  that 
the  administration  had  offered  bribes  to 
members  of  Congress  and  newspaper  editors 
to  vote  for  the  bill  to  admit  Kansas  under 
the  Lecompton  constitution.  Buchanan 
entered  a  vigorous  protest  against  the  inves 
tigation,  declaring  that  there  was  no  public 
act  of  his  life  "which  will  not  bear  the  strict 
est  scrutiny."  The  Republican  majority 
of  the  committee  reported  that  the  charges 
had  been  sustained,  while  the  Democratic 
minority  upheld  the  President.  A  resolution 
censuring  the  President  and  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  for  partisan  treatment  of  bids 
and  contracts  was  passed,  against  which 
Buchanan  again  protested. 

The  Kansas  question  reappeared  in  the 
form  of  an  application  for  the  admission  of 
the  State  under  the  Wyandotte  constitu 
tion.  The  House  passed  a  bill  for  admission, 
but  the  Senate  rejected  it.  In  the  previous 
Congress  a  bill  giving  to  heads  of  families 
the  right  to  purchase  public  lands,  to  the 
amount  of  160  acres,  at  the  minimum  price 
of  $1.25  per  acre,  had  been  made  a  party 
question;  and  the  bill,  after  passing  the 
House,  had  been  left  without  action  by  the 
Senate.  This  "Homestead  Bill"  was  now 
revived  in  the  form  of  a  substitute  offering 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  245 

lands  at  twenty-five  cents  an  acre  to  actual 
settlers.  Buchanan  vetoed  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  interfered  with  the  public  land 
system,  was  unjust  to  the  older  States  and 
to  settlers  themselves,  and  would  unduly 
diminish  the  revenue. 

All  matters  of  legislation,  however,  were 
dwarfed  into  insignificance  by  the  over 
shadowing  importance  of  the  presidential 
election.  The  Democrats  met  in  conven 
tion  at  Charleston,  April  23,  1860.  Majority 
and  minority  sets  of  resolutions,  embodying 
respectively  the  radical  and  conservative 
views  of  the  party,  were  presented.  On  the 
30th  the  minority  resolutions,  reaffirming 
the  platform  of  1856,  were  adopted.  Many 
Southern  delegates  at  once  withdrew.  After 
balloting  for  fifty-seven  times  for  President, 
the  convention  adjourned  to  meet  at  Balti 
more  on  June  18.  The  seceding  delegates 
met  and  organized,  and  adjourned  to  meet 
at  Richmond  on  June  11.  The  regular 
convention,  reassembling  at  Richmond,  at 
once  nominated  Douglas.  A  further  seces 
sion  took  place,  and  the  seceders,  joined  by 
those  who  had  withdrawn  at  Charleston, 
nominated  John  C.  Breckinridge  of  Ken 
tucky.  The  platform  of  the  Breckinridge 
delegates  included  an  uncompromising  asser 
tion  of  the  rights  of  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

On  May  9  a  convention  of  delegates  styling 
themselves  the  Constitutional  Union  party 


246    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

met  at  Baltimore,  adopted  a  platform  calling 
for  "the  Constitution  of  the  country,  the 
union  of  the  States,  and  the  enforcement  of 
the  laws,"  and  nominated  John  Bell  of 
Tennessee  for  President. 

The  Republicans  met  at  Chicago  May  16. 
The  leading  candidate  was  Seward,  but  he 
had  to  reckon  with  the  bitter  opposition  of 
Greeley  and  the  New  York  Tribune,  the 
latter  now  the  leading  organ  of  the  party; 
and  his  radical  views  on  slavery  were  by 
no  means  generally  acceptable.  After  three 
ballots,  Lincoln  was  unanimously  nominated. 
The  platform,  adopted  before  the  nomina 
tions  were  made,  planted  the  Republicans 
squarely  on  antislavery  ground  in  declaring 
"that  the  normal  condition  of  all  the  terri 
tory  of  the  United  States  is  that  of  freedom," 
and  calling  for  the  immediate  admission  of 
Kansas  under  the  Wyandotte  constitution; 
but  it  shrewdly  appealed  to  progressive 
and  broad  construction  sentiment  on  other 
grounds  also,  favoring  a  protective  tariff, 
the  passage  of  the  Homestead  bill  as  framed 
by  the  House,  river  and  harbor  improve 
ments,  and  a  Pacific  railway. 

The  campaign  was  as  ominous  as  it  was 
exciting.  The  Republicans  were  confident 
of  success,  while  from  the  South  came  open 
threats  of  withdrawing  from  the  Union  if 
Lincoln  were  elected.  The  only  hope  of 
avoiding  a  rupture  lay,  apparently,  in  the 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  247 

division  among  the  Democrats;  for  while 
Breckinridge,  the  radical  Southern  candidate, 
stood  for  secession,  Douglas,  the  regular 
Democratic  nominee,  stood  for  union. 

The  vote  was  instructive.  In  a  total  of 
303  electoral  votes,  Lincoln  had  180,  Breck 
inridge  72,  Bell  39,  and  Douglas  12.  The 
popular  vote  stood  1,866,452  for  Lincoln, 
1,376,957  for  Douglas,  849,781  for  Breckin 
ridge,  and  588,879  for  Bell.  Lincoln's  popular 
vote  was  a  noticeable  minority  of  the  total, 
but  in  the  South,  where,  with  the  exception 
of  Virginia  and  the  border  States,  he  received 
no  votes  at  all,  the  combined  popular  vote  of 
Douglas  and  Bell,  both  Union  candidates, 
exceeded  by  more  than  100,000  the  vote  for 
Breckinridge. 

But  the  temper  of  the  South  had  been 
sorely  tried,  and  the  South,  whether  right 
or  wrong,  was  not  afraid.  The  desirability 
of  slavery  was,  indeed,  still  a  debatable 
question;  but  what  the  South  demanded 
was  the  right  to  live  its  own  life  in  its  own 
way,  under  such  social  institutions  as  were 
satisfactory  to  itself.  And  since,  with  a 
Republican  administration  soon  to  be  inau 
gurated,  there  seemed  small  likelihood  that 
the  South  would  long  be  able  to  defend  it 
self  in  the  Union,  it  sought,  with  mingled 
anger  and  regret,  political  and  social  inde 
pendence  out  of  the  Union. 

The  only  State  in  which  presidential  elec- 


248    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

tors  were  still  chosen  by  the  Legislature  was 
South  Carolina.  The  legislature  met  for 
that  purpose  November  4.  As  soon  as  the 
result  of  the  election  was  known,  every 
federal  office-holder  in  the  State  resigned. 
On  the  12th  an  act  was  passed  summoning 
a  convention  to  consider  the  question  of 
withdrawing  from  the  Union,  and  the  next 
day  a  governor  was  chosen  who  at  once 
formed  a  cabinet  as  though  South  Carolina 
were  an  independent  State.  The  conven 
tion  met  on  December  17,  and  on  the  20th 
issued  the  famous  Ordinance  of  Secession. 
The  next  day  the  representatives  of  the 
State  in  Congress  withdrew  from  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

Buchanan  was  advised  by  his  Attorney- 
General,  Black,  that  he  had  no  constitu 
tional  power  to  use  force  in  South  Carolina 
unless  there  was  federal  property  to  defend 
or  federal  officials  to  uphold;  and  he  could 
do  no  more,  in  his  annual  message  in  Decem 
ber,  than  declare  that  while  no  State  might 
constitutionally  secede,  he  was  helpless  if 
it  did.  Meantime  conventions  were  being 
called  in  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Mis 
sissippi,  and  Louisiana.  On  December  12 
Black  succeeded  Cass  as  Secretary  of  State, 
and  a  new  Attorney-General,  Edwin  M. 
Stanton,  with  far  more  vigorous  views  of 
the  President's  powers,  entered  the  cabinet. 
Two  weeks  later  three  commissioners  from 


UNION  OR  DISUNION  249 

South  Carolina  appeared  at  Washington  to 
demand  the  immediate  removal  of  federal 
troops  from  the  forts  in  Charleston  harbor. 

There  were  not  wanting  many  who  still 
hoped  for  peaceable  adjustment.  Innumer 
able  compromise  resolutions  were  presented 
in  Congress.  The  one  which  for  a  time 
seemed  most  likely  to  succeed,  known  as 
the  Crittenden  Compromise,  proposed  a 
number  of  amendments  to  the  Constitution, 
practically  conceding  all  that  the  South  had 
ever  claimed.  Even  Seward  was  willing  to 
vote  for  an  irrepealable  amendment  protect 
ing  slavery  in  the  States  in  which  it  already 
existed.  In  February  a  peace  congress, 
comprising  delegates  from  twenty-one  States 
and  presided  over  by  ex-President  Tyler, 
met  at  Washington  and  recommended  elabo 
rate  amendments;  while  Congress  itself, 
March  2,  voted  to  submit  an  amendment 
forever  restraining  that  body  from  inter 
fering  wTith  slavery  in  any  State. 

But  the  movement  for  secession  went 
forward  systematically.  On  January  9  Miss 
issippi  seceded,  followed  by  Florida  on 
January  10,  Alabama  on  January  11,  Georgia 
on  January  19,  and  Louisiana  on  January 
26.  On  the  8th  of  February  a  congress  of 
representatives  from  the  five  seceded  States 
met  at  Montgomery,  Alabama,  and  adopted 
a  provisional  constitution,  replaced  in  March 
by  the  permanent  constitution  of  the  Con- 


250    FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LINCOLN 

federate  States  of  America.  The  President 
of  the  new  government  was  Jefferson  Davis, 
lately  Senator  from  Mississippi.  As  fast 
as  the  States  announced  their  withdrawal 
from  the  Union,  they  seized  the  federal 
property  within  their  limits,  the  total 
amount  taken  over  being  estimated  at  $30, 
000,000.  With  the  secession  of  Texas,  in 
February,  about  half  of  the  regular  army 
of  the  United  States  was  surrendered  to 
the  authorities  of  the  State. 

Lincoln  went  to  Washington  ten  days 
before  his  inauguration,  escaping  a  plot  to 
assassinate  him  as  he  passed  through  Balti 
more,  and  remained  quietly  at  a  hotel  until 
Buchanan's  term  had  ended.  The  burden 
of  his  conversations  with  those  who  called 
upon  him  was  the  necessity  of  saving  the 
Union,  and  the  hope  that  the  final  appeal  to 
arms  might  be  avoided.  With  events  pro 
gressing  as  they  were,  perhaps  he  himself 
did  not  yet  know  what  his  policy  would  be, 
but  he  meant  to  appease  the  South  and 
prevent  disruption  if  such  were  possible. 
On  the  4th  of  March,  with  all  the  troops  that 
General  Scott  could  muster  guarding  Penn 
sylvania  Avenue,  he  rode  to  the  capitol, 
took  the  oath  of  office,  read  his  inaugural 
address,  and  returned  to  the  White  House 
to  take  up,  sadly  but  courageously,  the 
supreme  task  of  saving  the  Union. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 

The  period  covered  by  this  volume  is  dealt  with  at  length 
in  three  comprehensive  histories:  H.  von  Hoist,  Constitu 
tional  and  Political  History  of  the  United  States  (8  vols.,  new 
ed.  1899);  J.  B.  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United 
States  (7  vols.,  1883-1910),  to  1850;  and  J.  Schouler,  History 
of  the  United  States  (6  vols.,  1894-99).  To  these  are  to  be 
added  the  first  two  volumes  of  J.  F.  Rhodes,  History  of  the 
United  States  from  the  Compromise  of  1850  (7  vols.,  1893- 
1906).  Six  of  the  volumes  in  the  American  Nation,  a  co 
operative  work  edited  by  A.  B.  Hart,  form  practically  a 
continuous  narrative:  F.  J.  Turner,  Rise  of  the  New  West; 
W.  MacDonald,  Jacksonian  Democracy;  W.  P.  Garrison, 
Westward  Extension;  A.  B.  Hart,  Slavery  and  Abolition;^  T.  C. 
Smith,  Parties  and  Slavery;  F.  E.  Chadwick,  Causes  of  the 
Civil  War.  Nicolay  and  Hay's  elaborate  Abraham  Lincoln 
(10  vols.,  1890)  is  a  comprehensive  history  as  well  as  a 
biography. 

The  American  Statesmen  series,  American  Crisis  Biographies, 
and  Great  Commanders  series  are  important  but  very  uneven 
collections.  To  these  should  be  added  W.  Birney,  James  G. 
Birney  and  his  Times  (1890);  O.  G.  Villard,  John  Brown 
(1910);  G.  T.  Curtis,  Daniel  Webster  (2  vols.,  1870)  and 
James  Buchanan  (2  vols.,  1883);  D.  Mallory,  Life  and  Speeches 
of  Henry  Clay  (2  vols.,  1843) ;  C.  Colton,  Life  and  Times  of 
Henry  Clay  (2  vols.,  1846);  A.  Johnson,  Stephen  A.  Douglas 
(1908);  F.  J.  and  W.  P.  Garrison,  William  Lloyd  Garrison 
(4  vols.,  1885-89);  G.  W.  Julian,  Joshua  R.  Giddings  (1892); 
T.  D.  Jervey,  Robert  Y.  Hayne  (1909) ;  H.  Bruce,  Life  of  Gen 
eral  Houston  (1891);  J.  S.  Bassett,  Andrew  Jackson  (2  vols., 
1911);  H.  A.  Garland,  John  Randolph  (2  vols.,  1850);  F.  W. 
Blackmar,  Charles  Robinson  (1902);  F.  Bancroft,  William 
H.  Seward,  (2  vols.,  1900);  W.  W.  Story,  Joseph  Story  (2  vols., 
1851);  E.  L.  Pierce,  Charles  Sumner  (4  vols.,  1877-93);  S. 
Tyler,  Roger  B.  Taney  (1872);  P.  A.  Stovall,  Robert  Toombs 
251 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 

(1892);  A.  G.  Riddle,  Benjamin  F.  Wade  (1886);  T.  W. 
Barnes,  Thurlow  Weed  (1884);  J.  W.  DuBose,  William  L. 
Yancey  (1892). 

Of  the  collected  writings  of  American  statesmen  the  most 
important  are:  James  Buchanan,  Works,  edited  by  J.  B. 
Moore  (12  vols.,  1908-11);  John  C.  Calhoun,  Works  (6  vols., 
1853-55)  and  Correspondence  (Report  of  Amer.  Historical 
Assoc.,  1899,  vol.  II);  Henry  Clay,  Works  (6  vols.,  1863); 
MUlard  Fillmore  Papers,  edited  by  F.  H.  Severance  (Publica 
tions  of  Buffalo  Hist.  Society,  vols.  X,  XI);  James  Monroe, 
Writings,  edited  by  S.  M.  Hamilton  (7  vols.,  1898-1903); 
W.  H.  Seward,  Works,  edited  by  G.  E.  Baker  (5  vols.,  1853- 
84);  Daniel  Webster,  Works  (6  vols.,  1851). 

The  literature  of  autobiography  and  reminiscence  is  very 
extensive,  including  among  its  more  significant  items  John 
Quincy  Adams's  Memoirs  (12  vols.,  1874-77),  T.  H.  Benton's 
Thirty  Years'  View  (2  vols.,  1854-56),  Amos  Kendall's 
Autobiography  (1872),  James  K.  Folk's  Diary  (4  vols.,  1910), 
N.  Sargent's  Public  Men  and  Events  (2  vols.,  1875),  and 
Winfield  Scott's  Memoirs  (2  vols.,  1864). 

Important  special  aspects  of  the  period  are  treated  in  E. 
Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency  (1898);  H.  J.  Ford,  Rise 
and  Growth  of  American  Politics  (1898);  D.  R.  Dewey, 
Financial  History  of  the  United  States  (3d  ed.,  1907);  F.  W. 
Taussig,  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States  (5th  ed.,  1910); 
E.  L.  Bogart,  Economic  History  of  the  United  States  (1908); 
J.  W.  Foster,  A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy  (1900); 
D.  F.  Houston,  Critical  Study  of  Nullification  in  South  Carolina 
(1896);  W.  E.  B.  DuBois.  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave 
Trade  (1896). 

The  following  collections  of  documents  are  useful:  J.  D. 
Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents  (10  vols., 
1896-99);  A.  Johnston  and  J.  A.  Woodburn,  American  Ora 
tions  (4  vols.,  1896-97);  W.  MacDonald,  Select  Documents, 
1776-1861  (1898).  Of  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates  there 
are  several  editions. 


INDEX 


Aberdeen,  Lord,  91 

Abolition  petitions,  73-75;  early 
societies,  65 

Abolitionists,  election  of  1844,  98 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  on  internal  improve 
ments,  82;  acquisition  of  Florida, 
34;  election  of  1828,  42;  as 
political  leader,  43;  abolition 
petitions,  73;  on  Texas  annexa 
tion,  90 

Albany  regency,  44 

Alton,  111.,  mob,  71 

American  Antislavery  Society,  69 

American  Colonization  Society,  66 

American  party,  185,  186  (See 
Elections) 

Antimasons,  45,  62  (See  Elections) 

Anti-Nebraska  men,  186  (See 
Elections) 

Appeal  of  the  Independent  Demo 
crats,  173 

Astoria,  94 

Atchison,  Ks.,  187 

Bancroft,  George,  81,  103,  107 

Bank  of  United  States,  first,  27,  28; 
second,  47-53 

Banks,  N.  P.,  193 

Barnburners,  122 

Bear  Flag  Republic,  114,  115 

Bell,  John,  246 

Benton,  T.  H.,  52,  53;  on  annexa 
tion  of  Texas,  104;  defeated  for 
Senate,  161;  opposed  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  178 

Biddle,  Nicholas,  49 

Birney,  J.  G.,  77,  98 

Black,  J.  S.,  248 

Bonus  bill,  31 

Breckinridge,  J.  C.,  245 

Brook  Farm,  80 

Brooks,  P.  B.,  198 

Brown,  John,  early  career,  199-201;- 
raid,  240-243 

Buchanan,  James,  secretary  of 
state,  103;  on  Oregon,  109; 
election  of  1852,  159;  Ostend 
manifesto,  212;  election  of  1856, 
214,  217;  administration,  230-250 

Buena  Vista,  116 

Buford  company,  197 

Bulwer,  Sir  H.  L.,  163 

Calhoun,  J.  C.,  in  1816,  27-30; 
bonus  bill,  31;  tariff  of  1828,  41; 
election  of  1828,  42;  resigned 


Vice-Presidency,  55;  senator,  58: 
on  abolition,  76;  secretary  or 
state,  91;  compromise  of  1850, 137 

California,  gold  discovery,  127-129; 
slavery,  129, 130;  admission,  126- 
136 

Canaan,  N.  H.,  academy,  70 

Cass,  Lewis,  122,  123,  159 

Censure  of  Jackson,  52,  53 

Cerro  Gordo,  117 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  abolition  mails, 
72 

Chase,  S.  P.,  174,  215 

Cherokee  Indians,  58,  59 

Chihuahua,  115 

Churubusco,  118 

City  of  Mexico,  117,  118 

Clay,  Henry,  leadership,  18,  83; 
on  bank  of  U.  S.,  30;  election  of 
1828,  42;  tariff  of  1833,  57;  on 
abolition,  76;  on  Texas,  84,  93, 
97;  election  of  1844,  98;  com 
promise  of  1850,  133-135;  death, 
161 

Clayton,  J.  M.,  126,  180 

Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  163,  164 

Clifford,  Nathan,  103 

Clinton,  George,  28 

Cobb,  Howell,  133 

Commercial  crisis,  1857,  150 

Compromise,  Missouri,  35-38;  of 
1850,  124-143 

Confederate  States  of  America, 
249,  250 

Congregationalism,  22,  78 

Conner,  David,  117 

Constitutional  Union  party,  243 
(See  Elections) 

Contreras,  118 

Corporal's  guard,  89 

Corrupt  bargain,  42 

Corwin,  Thomas,  126 

Cotton  belt,  66,  84 

Cotton  gin,  25,  65 

Cotton  mills,  25 

Crandall,  Prudence,  70 

Crawford,  W.  H.,  42 

Crittenden,  J.  J.,  152 

Cuba,  filibustering,  164;  desired  by 
Buchanan,  239  (See  Ostend 
Manifesto) 

Cullom,  William,  180 

Cumberland  Road,  32 

Curtis,  B.  R.,  Dred  Scott  case,  223- 
229 

Curtis,  G.  T.,  154 


253 


254 


INDEX 


Dallas,  A.  J.,  26,  28 

Davis,  Jefferson,  192 

Debt  reduction,  149 

Declaration  of  Paris,  218 

Democratic  party  (See  Elections, 
1828-1860) 

Dixon,  Archibald,  172 

Doniphan,  A.  W.,  115 

Douglas,  S.  A.,  compromise  of  1850, 
125;  election  of  1852,  159; 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  170-179, 
181—183;  Lecompton  constitu 
tion,  204;  debates  with  Lincoln, 
231-236;  election  of  1860,  245 

Dred  Scott  case,  219-229 

Duane,  W.  J.,  51 

East  Florida,  34,  35 

Election  of  1820,  40;  of  1824,  41-43; 
of  1828,  44,  45;  of  1832,  54;  of 
1836,  61,  62;  of  1840,  88;  of  1844, 
97,  98;  of  1848,  122,  123;  of 
1852,  159-161;  of  1856,  213-217; 
of  1860,  245-247 

Embargo  Act,  25 

English,  W.  H.,  176 

Era  of  good  feeling,  40 

Erie  Canal,  32 

Everett,  Edward,  91,  177 

Expunging  resolutions,  52,  53 

Factory  system,  79 

Federalists,  14 

"Fifty-four  forty  or  fight,"  109 

Fillmore,  Millard,  becomes  Presi 
dent,  135;  on  compromise  of 
1850,  142;  on  fugitive  slave  law, 
152-156;  election  of  1852,  160; 
election  of  1856,  214,  216 

Florida  acquisition,  34,  35;  State 
admitted,  100 

Force  bill,  57 

Forsyth,  John,  88 

Fort  Leavenworth,  168 

"Forty-niners,"  128 

Fourteenth  Amendment,  229 

Free  Soil  Democrats,  160 

Free  Soil  party  and  slavery,  132 
(See  Elections) 

Fremont,  J.  C.,  in  California,  114, 
115;  election  of  1856,  215 

French  claims,  59 

Fugitive  slave  act  of  1850,  151-158; 
in  election  of  1852,  161 

Fugitive  slave  cases:  Shadrach,  154; 
Sims,  154,  155;  Gorsuch,  155; 
McHenry,  155;  Booth,  183; 
Burns,  183,  184 


Gadsden  purchase,  144 

Gag  rule,  74,  86 

Garrison,  W.  L.,  69,  70 

Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation, 

69 

Georgia  and  the  Cherokees,  58,  59 
Ghent,  treaty  of,  8 
Giddings,  J.  R.,  89,  173 
Gold  in  California,  127-129 
Grant,  U.  S.,  117 
Greeley,  Horace,  188,  233 
Greytown,  164 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  treaty  of,  119 

Hale,  J.  P.,  160 
Hamilton,  Alexander,  29 
Harper's  Ferry  raid,  240-243 
Harrison,  W.  H.,  62,  88 
Hartford  convention,  15 


Hayne,  R.  Y.,  57 
Helper's  "I 


lper's  "Impending  Crisis,"  243 
Higginson,  T.  W.,  184 
Holy  Alliance,  38 
Homestead  bill  (1859),  244,  245 
Houston,  Samuel,  85 
Howard,  W.  A.,  197 
Hiilsemann  letter,  162,  163 
Hunkers,  122 

Immigration,  146 
Internal  improvements,  30-32 
Iowa  admitted,  137 
Isthmian  canal,  163,  164 

Jackson,  Andrew,  in  Florida,  34; 
election  of  1828,  42;  administra 
tion,  46-62;  on  abolition  mail, 
72;  on  Texas  annexation,  86,  92; 
recommends  reprisals  against 
Mexico,  87 

Jackson  men,  45 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  16,  17 

Johnson,  R.  M.,  61 

Kansas,     early    history,     167-169; 

Kansas-Nebraska    bill,    170-179; 

Kansas  struggle,  187-207 
Kearny,  S.  W.,  113 
Kendall,  Amos,  72 
King,  W.  R.,  159 
Know-Nothings,     185,     186     (See 

Elections) 

Labor  movement,  80 
Lawrence,  Ks.,  189 
Leavenworth,  Ks.,  187 
Lecompton,  Ks.,  187 
Lecompton  constitution,  203-205 
Lee,  R.  E.,  117,  241 


INDEX 


255 


Liberator,  The,  69 

Liberty  party,  77  (See  Elections) 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  early  life,  232; 
election  of  1860,  246,  247;  in 
augurated,  250 

Lincoln-Douglas  debates,  231-236 

Local  government,  13,  14 

Los  Angeles,  114 

Louisiana  purchase,  9,  82 

Lovejoy,  E.  P.,  71 

Lundy,  Benjamin,  69 

McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  33,  48 

McLane,  Louis,  51 

McLean,  John,  62 

Madison,  James,  31,  34 

Maine,  admission,  36,  37 

Manufactures,  26,  147 

Marcy,  W.  L.,  103,  159 

Marshall,  John,  58 

Mason,  J.  Y.,  212 

Massachusetts  Emigrant  Aid  Co., 
188 

May,  S.  J.,  155 

Mexican  war,  104-122;  finances  of, 
149 

Missouri,  admission,  35-38;  com 
promise  and  slavery,  67 

Monroe,  James,  31 

Monroe  doctrine,  38,  39 

Monterey,  Cal.,  114 

Monterey,  Mexico,  116 

Mormons,  238,  239 

Morrill  tariff,  150 

Mosquito  Indians,  163 

National     Republicans,     45     (See 

Elections) 
Native  Americanism,  184-186  (See 

Elections) 

Nat  Turner  insurrection,  71 
New  England  Antislavery  Society,  69 
New  England  clergy,  protest  against 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  177 
New  England  Emigrant  Aid   Co., 

188,  196 

New  Mexico,  organization,  126-136 
New  Orleans  riot,  165 
Nicaragua,  163 
Non-intercourse  Act,  25 
Nootka  Sound  convention,  93 
Nullification  in  South  Carolina,  55- 

58 

Oliver,  Mordecai,  197 
Omnibus  bill,  135 

Order  of  the  Star  Spangled  Banner, 
185 


Ordinance  of  Nullification,  55 
Ordinance  of  1787,  20;  and  Oregon, 

125 
Oregon  question,  93-96,  100,   101, 

109,  110, 125-127 
Oregon  trail,  1(58 
Osawatomie,  Ks.,  200 
Ostend  manifesto,  212,  215 

Pacific  railway,  218 

Pakenham,  Richard,  91,  110 

Palo  Alto,  116 

Panama,  163,  218 

Paris,  treaty  of,  7 

Parker,  Theodore,  240 

Pawnee,  Ks.,  legislature,  191,  192 

Peace  congress,  249 

Pensacola,  Fla.,  34 

Personal  liberty  laws,  153 

Pet  banks,  59 

Petitions,  abolition,  73-75 

Phillips,  Wendell,  71 

Pierce,  Franklin,  election,  159; 
administration,  165-218 

Polk,  J.  K.,  election,  97,  98;  ad 
ministration,  103-123;  signs  Ore 
gon  bill,  127 

Popular  sovereignty,  131 

Population  statistics,  9-12,  145-147 

PostofBce  extension,  149 

Pottawatomie  massacre,  200,  201 

Prison  reform,  78 

Protection,  27 

Public  lands,  60 

Railways,  148 

Reeder,  A.  H.,  189,  190-192,  195, 

196,  202 
Republican  party,  organization,  210 

211  (See  Elections) 
Resaca  de  la  Palma,  116 
Revivals,  78 

Richardson,  W.  A.,  176,  177,  193 
Robinson,  Charles,  189,  192,  201 
Rotation  in  office,  47 
Russia  and  the  Monroe  doctrine,  39 

Sabine  river,  35 

Saltillo,  116 

Sanborn,  Frank,  240,  242 

San  Diego,  Cal.,  113 

San  Francisco,  Cal.,  114 

Santa  Anna,  85,  116,  119 

Santa  Fe\  N.  M.,  113 

Santa  F6  trail,  168 

Scott,  W.  S.,  112,  113,  117, 118, 160, 

250  (See  Elections) 
Secession,  248-250 


256 


INDEX 


Sectionalism  and  compromise,  141 

Seward,  W.  H.,  on  compromise  of 
18.50,  138,  139;  Rochester  speech, 
236;  election  of  I860,  246 

Shannon,  Wilson,  194,  201 

Shawnee  Mission,  Ks.,  191 

Sherman,  John,  196 

Slade,  William,  73 

Slavery  in  1815,  23,  24;  growth, 
63,  64,  67,  68;  in  California, 
129,  130;  sectionalism,  141,  142 

Slave  trade,  19,  20;  foreign, 
prohibited,  66;  in  District  of 
Columbia,  130,  136 

Slidell,  John,  105,  106 

Sloat,  J.  D.,  113 

Smith,  Gerrit,  155,  173,  240,  242 

Social  life  (1815),  20-22 

Social  reforms,  80 

Society  of  Friends,  157 

Soule,  Pierre,  212 

South  Carolina  nullification,  55-58; 
secession,  248 

Spain  and  Florida,  34,  35 

Specie  circular,  61 

Spoils  system,  47 

Stanton,  E.  M.,  248 

Steamboats,  western,  32 

St.  Marks,  Fla.,  34 

Stockton,  R.  F.,  114 

Stowe,  H.  B.,  156 

Subtreasury  system,  88,  89,  111 

Sumner,  Charles,  on  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  172,  178;  assault, 
198,  199 

Surplus  revenue,  60 

Taney,  R.  B.,  bank  of  U.  S.,  51,  52; 

Dred  Scott  case,  220-228 
Tariff  of  1816,  27;   of  1824,  40,  41; 

of    1828,    41;     of    1833,    57;     of 

1857,  150 
Taylor,  Zachary,  in  Mexican  war, 

105-108,  113,  116,  117;    election, 

122,    123;     administration,    132- 

135;   death,  135 
Telegraph  system,  148 
Temperance  movement,  78 
Territory  of  U.  S.  (1815),  8 
Texas  question,  59,  82-88,   90-93, 

96-100,  104,  105;    boundary  and 

claims,  134,  135 
Thayer,  Eli,  188 
Thirteenth  Amendment,  2?-9 
Topeka,  Ks.,  government,  192,  196, 

201 

Total  abstinence  movement,  78 
Travel  in  1815,  20 


Treaty    of    Paris,    7;     Ghent,    8; 

Webster-Ashburton,  89;    Guada- 

lupe     Hidalgo,     119;      Clayton- 

Bulwer,  163,  164 
Tribune,  N.  Y.,  188,  233 
Trist,  N.  P.,  118,  119,  122 
Tyler,    John,    administration,    88- 

102;  peace  congress,  249 

Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  156 
Underground  Railway,  157 
Unitarian  movement,  22,  78 
Utah,  territorial  organization,  133, 
135,  136;    Mormons  in,  238,  239 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  secretary  of 
state,  44;  minister  to  England, 
54;  on  Texas,  84,  93,  97;  election 
of  1836,  62;  election  of  1840,  88; 
election  of  1848,  123 

Vera  Cruz,  117 

Wade,  B.  F.,  173 

Wakarusa  war,  194,  195 

Walker,  R.  J.,  103,   204;    tariff  of 

1846,  111 
War  of  1812,  7 
Webster,  Daniel,  on  tariff  of  1816, 

27;      constitutional     views,     33; 

on  tariff  of  1828,  41;    election  of 

1836,     62;      on     abolition,     76; 

resigns  as  secretary  of  state,  89; 

on    compromise    of    1850,    138; 

condemned,     143;      on     fugitive 

slave  law,  152;    election  of  1852, 

160;      death,     161;      Hulsemann 

letter,  162,  163 
Webster-Ashburton  treaty,  89 
West,  influence,  18 
West  Florida,  34,  35 
West  Indies,  trade  opened,  59 
Whig  party  (See  Elections) 
Whitfield,  J.  W.,  190,  196,  202 
Whitman,  Marcus,  95 
Whittier,  J.  G.,  81;  on  Webster,  143 
Wilmot  proviso,  120,  125,  130 
Wilson,  Henry,  188 
Winthrop,  R.  C.,  132 
Wise,  H.  A.,  242 
Wisconsin  admitted,  137 
Woman's  rights  movement,  80 
Women  wage-earners,  79 
Wool,  J.  E.,  115 
Wyandotte,  Ks.,  constitution,  205, 

244 

Yancey,  W.  L.,  131 
Young,  Brigham,  238 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  of 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC'D 

NOVU'65-6PM 

u 

LOAN  DEPT. 

MAY  t  r  mrc 

p  , 

• 

«N15'661S» 

[AJ 

m 

H 

H 

!  1 

2^ 

LD  21A-60m-3,'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LD  2lA-50m-3,'62 


General  Library 
University  of  California 


